CBSE faces transparency push as govt body orders disclosure of answer sheet contracts

The Central Information Commission (CIC) has directed CBSE to provide RTI-permissible information on Class 10 and 12 board exam expenditure, answer sheet procurement, and tender processes. Setting aside CBSE's earlier denial, the Commission said exempt information may be redacted, while refusals under RTI exemptions must be properly justified.

In Short

• CIC directs CBSE to provide detailed RTI info on Class 10 and 12 exam expenses
• CBSE initially withheld procurement and tender details citing RTI exemptions
• CIC finds CBSE's refusal unjustified, orders revised, point-wise RTI response

The Central Information Commission (CIC) has instructed the Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) to provide point-wise, category-specific information, as allowed under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, regarding expenditure incurred on Class 10 and Class 12 board examinations. The information will also include details on answer books, as well as the tendering and procurement procedures used to conduct the exams.

Overturning CBSE’s earlier refusal to share the information, the Central Information Commission directed the board to issue revised responses under the RTI Act. The Commission said any information exempt from disclosure can be suitably redacted under Section 10 of the Act, while any refusal to provide information under Section 8(1)(d) must be backed by clear and valid reasons.

RTI APPLICANT SOUGHT ANSWER BOOK PROCUREMENT DETAILS

The matter stemmed from an RTI application that sought information on the answer books used in Class 10 and Class 12 board examinations for the 2023–24 and 2024–25 academic sessions. The applicant requested details such as the quality, size, and page count of the answer sheets, their procurement cost, total expenditure incurred, GST payments, and information related to the tendering and procurement process.

In its reply, CBSE shared some specifications of the answer books, stating that the paper quality ranged between 60 GSM and 120 GSM. The board also informed that the answer books were produced in formats of 8, 20, 32, 40, and 48 pages, and were available in dimensions of 22 x 28 cm and 37.5 x 54.5 cm.

CBSE CITES RTI EXEMPTIONS TO WITHHOLD INFORMATION

The board stated that it does not maintain records on the weight of individual answer books. It also refused to disclose details such as the purchase cost of answer books, the quantity procured, and the total expenditure incurred on their procurement, citing exemption under Section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act.

Regarding information on the tendering process, including the names of participating firms, the rates quoted, and the criteria for vendor selection, CBSE argued that these pertained to the "confidential" and "sensitive" aspects of board examinations. The board claimed exemption from disclosure under Sections 8(1)(d), 8(1)(e), and 8(1)(g) of the RTI Act.

CBSE further stated that examination fee-related expenditure records are maintained according to the financial year rather than academic sessions, making it difficult to provide the specific details sought by the applicant. The board also said that expenses incurred on practical examinations are recorded under a broader expenditure category and cannot be separately identified.

APPELLANT RAISES TRANSPARENCY CONCERNS BEFORE CIC

Dissatisfied with the response, the appellant approached the CIC, contending that information related to procurement and expenditure should be disclosed in the interest of transparency and public accountability.

Information Commissioner Sudha Rani Relangi noted that the central issue in the appeal was CBSE's refusal to disclose details regarding the tender process for procuring answer sheets and other stationery items, despite the appellant's argument that a larger public interest warranted such disclosure.

CIC FINDS DENIAL LACKED ADEQUATE JUSTIFICATION

The Commission observed that the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) had invoked multiple exemption provisions to withhold information without providing adequate reasons for doing so. It also pointed out that the CPIO neither attended the hearing nor submitted a written explanation defending the decision to deny the requested information.

As a result, the CIC set aside the CPIO’s reply dated March 18, 2025, noting that the denial lacked proper justification.

Emphasising the importance of transparency in public procurement, the Commission further remarked that both the Supreme Court and the CIC have repeatedly held that exemptions under the RTI Act must be interpreted narrowly to promote accountability and openness in procurement processes and public contracts undertaken by government bodies.

"Now, considering the averments of the Appellant during the hearing regarding irregularity on such tenders, the Commission deems it fit to direct CPIO to revisit the contents of the RTI application in question and provide revised point-wise categorical replies along with relevant permissible information that can be provided as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005," the CIC said.

The CIC further observed that the CPIO should have provided all information that could legally be disclosed and withheld only those portions specifically protected under the RTI Act. The Commission stated that any exempt information ought to have been severed from the records by applying the provisions of Section 10 of the RTI Act, rather than denying the information in its entirety.

It noted that information exempt from disclosure should be suitably redacted or masked in accordance with Section 10 of the RTI Act, 2005.

WHAT SECTION 8(1)(d) OF THE RTI ACT SAYS

The Commission further stated that if any of the requested information falls within the ambit of Section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act, the CPIO must clearly justify the denial by meeting the burden of proof prescribed under Section 19(5) of the Act.

According to the order, Section 8(1)(d) provides an exemption for information relating to commercial confidence, trade secrets, or intellectual property, where disclosure could adversely affect the competitive position of a third party. However, such information may still be disclosed if the competent authority determines that a larger public interest outweighs the need for confidentiality.

(With inputs from PTI)

- Ends