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 ...
24 comments
Read more

An order of attachment before judgment ends if a suit is dismissed

An order of attachment before judgment passed under Order XXXVIII Rule 5 of the Code will not survive the dismissal of a suit and it ends when the suit is dismissed after trial. Contents 1 (i) Whether an order of attachment before judgment under Order XXXVIII Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (“the Code”, for short) made in a suit for recovery of money will survive the dismissal of the suit on merits? 2 (ii) If the appellate court reverses the decree of the trial court and allows the suit claim, will it result in an automatic revival of the order of attachment before judgment? 3 (iii) Whether the ratio in the decision by Full Bench in Thampi Muhammad Abdul Kadir v. Padmanabha Pillai Parameswaran Pillai (1952 KLT 264) holds good in view of the change in the precedential law and insertion of Order XXXVIII Rule 11A to the Code? 3.1 “11A. Provisions applicable to attachment.- 3.2 “57. Determination of attachment.- 3.3 Arumuhom Ammal v. Nayanar Panicker (1962 KLT 264) 3.4...
Post a Comment
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...
13 comments
Read more