CBSE VS ADITYA

BANDOPADHYAY
(2011) 8 SCC 497

PRINCE KUMAR (A049)

ABHINAV KHADIKAR (A015)
 FACTS
• The respondent appeared for the examination conducted by the appellant

and wasn't satisfied with his result. He filed an application under the

Right to Information Act, 2005 ['RTI Act"] to allow him to view his

evaluated answer sheets. This was rejected by the appellant. So, he filed a

writ petition before the Calcutta High Court, which allowed the petition.

• CBSE denied the Respondent on grounds that their Bye-Laws prohibited

such action, and also that they were exempted under Section 8(1)(e) of the

Right to Information Act, 2005 as they held a "fiduciary" relationship

with the students.

• Section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act 2005 exempts information available to a

person in his fiduciary relationship from disclosure unless the competent
authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure
of such information.
 ISSUES

• Whether or not an examining body • Whether or not the by-laws of CBSE

holds the evaluated answer books "in play a role in the present scenario.
a fiduciary relationship" and (Examination Bye-Law 61(4), which
consequently has no obligation to clearly mentioned that no candidate
give inspection of the evaluated shall be entitled to re-evaluation of
answer books under section 8(1)(e) answer books or
of RTI Act. disclosure/inspection of answer
book.)
 JUDGEMENT
• The Court held that the corrected answer-sheets of a candidate appearing
for a public examination conducted by statutory bodies like CBSE being a
"document, manuscript record, and opinion' fell under the ambit of
"information" as defined in section 2(f) of the RTI Act.

• Fiduciary Relationship usually arises in one of the following four

situations:
• When one person places trust in the faithful integrity of another, who as a
result gains superiority or influence over the first.
• When one person assumes control and responsibility for another.
• When one person has a duty to act for or give advice to another on matters
falling within the scope of the relationship, or
• When there is a specific relationship that has traditionally been recognized
as involving fiduciary duties, as with a lawyer and a client or a stockbroker
and a customer.
 JUDGEMENT
• The Court held that although it can be widely held that there exists a fiduciary
relationship between the Board and its students, like one that exists in
between the government and its people, it cannot be interpreted to the extent
of exempting the Board from using the privilege under Section 8(1)(e) of the
RTI Act.

• The provisos of the RTI Act will prevail over the Bye-Laws of the CBSE with
respect to examination Bye-Law 61(4).

• The Court recognized that the right to information was a Fundamental Right
as it was an aspect of the right to freedom of expression under Article 19. In
this context, the RTI Act would prevail over the examination bye-laws.
Therefore, the only objections that could be taken to public records being
made available had to be found within the RTI Act.
 CONCLUSION/PERSONAL OPINION

• The Court correctly allowed the examinees to access their answer sheets.

• This judgement was only the start as students still faced certain
difficulties.

• They had been charged exorbitant fees and this discouraged students
from requesting to see their papers.

• Eventually, the fees were reduced to as low as Rs. 2 as students kept

fighting for lower fees

• In the end, this is just one singular case where the importance of RTI has
been highlighted and this Act gives immense hope that certain institutions
will continue to be held accountable in the future.