Skip to main content

Students have fundamental and legal right of having access to answer sheets under RTI

The Supreme Court has ordered the Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) to “scrupulously” follow its 2011 judgment which had ruled that students have fundamental and legal right of having access to answer sheets under Right to Information Act, 2005. The Court was hearing an application under Section 12 of the Contempt of Court Act, filed by two law students, Mr. Kumar Shanu and Mr. Paras Jain, demanding that contempt proceedings be initiated against CBSE Chairman, Mr. YSK Seshu Kumar for “wilfully and deliberately disobeying” Court directions. “That it is ironical and astonishing that Respondent/Contemnor, being an Educational Institution responsible for educating a large section of the society, is blatantly flouting the law laid down by this Hon’ble Court,” the petition stated. The petitioners had brought to the Court’s notice information obtained under the RTI Act, whereby they were informed that the Board charges Rs. 700 per subject from students for providing a copy of their answer sheets. They were further informed that students are compulsorily required to go through the process of Verification of Marks for a fee of Rs. 300 per subject, in order to become eligible for demanding copies of answer sheets. “That it is imperative to note that the said Answer-Sheet (Information) can easily be obtained at the cost of Rs 2 per page along with Rs 10/- for the application and concomitantly, examinees falling under Below Poverty Line Category have been guaranteed free access to above stated information under proviso to Section-7(5) of the RTI Act,” the petition further contends. This, the petition claimed, is against the Supreme Court judgment in the case of CBSE & anr. v. Aditya Bandhopadhyay & Ors. Civil Appeal No. 6454/2011. The judgment, rendered in August 2011 by a Division Bench comprising Justice R.V. Raveendran and Justice A.K. Patnaik had ruled that an answer sheet is “Information” as per Section-2(f) of the RTI Act. It had held that there existed a fiduciary relationship between the examining body and the student.

Read more at: http://www.livelaw.in/follow-judgment-said-access-answer-sheets-rti-right-sc-cbse/

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

MACT - Permanent disability - calculate - compensation - Supreme Court - Part 2

1) C. K. Subramonia Iyer vs. T. Kunhikuttan Nair - AIR 1970 SC 376
2) R. D. Hattangadi vs. Pest Control (India) Ltd. - 1995 (1) SCC 551
3) Baker vs. Willoughby - 1970 AC 467
4) Arvind Kumar Mishra v. New India Assurance Co.Ltd. - 2010(10) SCALE 298
5) Yadava Kumar v. D.M., National Insurance Co. Ltd. - 2010 (8) SCALE 567)



5.The heads under which compensation is awarded in personal injury cases are the following : Pecuniary damages (Special Damages)
(i)Expenses relating to treatment, hospitalization, medicines, transportation, nourishing food, and miscellaneous expenditure.
(ii)Loss of earnings (and other gains) which the injured would have made had he not been injured, comprising :
(a)Loss of earning during the period of treatment;
(b)Loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability.
(iii)Future medical expenses.
Non-pecuniary damages (General Damages)
(iv)Damages for pain, suffering and trauma as a consequence of the injuries.
(v)Loss of amenities (and/or loss of prospects…

Delay - condon - limitation

The proof by sufficient cause is a condition precedent for exercise of the extraordinary restriction vested in the court. What counts is not the length of the delay but the sufficiency of the cause and shortness of the delay is one of the circumstances to be taken into account in using the discretion.

Supreme Court of India
State Of Nagaland vs Lipok Ao & Ors on 1 April, 2005
Author: A Pasayat
Bench: Arijit Pasayat, S.H. Kapadia
           CASE NO.:
Appeal (crl.)  484 of 2005

PETITIONER:
State of Nagaland

RESPONDENT:
Lipok AO & Ors.

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 01/04/2005

BENCH:
ARIJIT PASAYAT & S.H. KAPADIA

JUDGMENT:
J U D G M E N T (Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) 4612 of 2003 ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.

Leave granted.

The State of Nagaland questions correctness of the judgment rendered by a learned Single Judge of the Gauhati High Court, Kohima Bench refusing to condone the delay by rejecting the application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (in short the 'Limitation Act') and conseque…

Passport - DRT - power to impound - High Court

1) Satwant Singh Sawhney v. D.Ramarathnam. Asst. Passport Officer, 1967 (3) SCR 52
2) Menaka Gandhi v. Union of India, 1978 (1) SCC 248
3) Industrial Credit and Investment Corporation of India Ltd. v. Grapco Industries Ltd., (1994) 4 SCC 710
4) Suresh Nanda v. Central Bureau of Investigation, 2008 (3) SCC 674
5) Damji Valaji Shah & another Vs. L.I.C. of India & others [AIR 1966 SC 135]
6) Gobind Sugar Mills Ltd. Vs. State of Bihar & others [1999 (7) SCC 76]
7) Belsund Sugar Co. Ltd. Vs. State of Bihar and others [AIR 1999 SC 3125]
8) Sanjeev R.Apte v. I.F.C.I. Ltd., and others, 2008 (154) DLT 77
9) Smt.Annai Jayabharathi v. The Debt Recovery Tribunal & Anr., CDJ 2005 Ker HC 171
10) Allahabad Bank v. Radhakrishna Maity, AIR 1999 SC 3426
11) Ramalinga v. Radha, 2011 (4) CTC 481
12) Sinnaswami Chettiar v. Aligi Goundan and others, AIR 1924 Madras 893 (OVERRULED)
13) Nallagatti Goundan v. Ramana Gounda and others, AIR 1925 Madras 170
14) Income Tax Officer v. M.K.Mohammad…