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/
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

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 ...
21 comments
Read more

Full & Final payment - No dues certificate - end of contract

Whether after the contract comes to an end by completion of the contract work and acceptance of the final bill in full and final satisfaction and after issuance a `No Due Certificate' by the contractor Supreme Court of India Supreme Court of India R.L. Kalathia & Co. vs State Of Gujarat on 14 January, 2011 Author: P Sathasivam Bench: P. Sathasivam, B.S. Chauhan IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3245 OF 2003 R.L. Kalathia & Co Appellant(s) Versus State of Gujarat .... Respondent(s) JUDGMENT P. Sathasivam, J. 1) This appeal is directed against the judgment and final order dated 07.10.2002 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Gujarat whereby the High Court set aside the judgment and decree dated 14.12.1982 passed by the Civil Judge, (S.D.), Jamnagar directing the State Government to pay a sum of Rs.2,27,758/- with costs and interest and dismissed the Civil Suit as well as cross objections filed by the a...
10 comments
Read more

Distinction between “Loss to the Estate” and “Loss of Estate”

A subtle but fundamental distinction between “Loss of Estate” and “Loss to the Estate” was discussed in Omana P.K. and others v. Francis Edwin and others (2011 (4) KLT 952). This Judgment was challenged before the Apex Court, which has now dismissed the Appeal. The question raised in this case, was whether a certain sum which the dependants received as compensation for untimely death of Judgment debtor in a motor accident is attachable in Execution Proceedings. In this case, Justice Thomas P. Joseph speaking for the Kerala High Court had held the following (relying on The Chairman, A.P.S.R.T.C, Hyderabad vs. Smt. Shafiya Khatoon and Others) Capitalized value of the income spent on the dependents, subject to relevant deductions, is the pecuniary loss sustained by the members of his family through his death. The capitalized value of his income, subject to relevant deductions, would be the loss caused to the estate by his death. In other words, what amount the dependents would have got le...
1 comment
Read more