Access to Evaluated Answer Sheets Under the RTI Act

The Right to Information Act, 2005 (“RTI Act”) is a powerful transparency legislation designed to ensure accountability in public authorities.

One recurring question under the RTI framework is whether candidates can seek access to their evaluated answer sheets and marking schemes after the conclusion of recruitment or examination processes.

Legal Position After UPSC and CBSE Judgments

Public authorities often deny such requests by citing judgments relating to large-scale examinations conducted by bodies such as UPSC or CBSE.

However, a closer reading of the law and judicial precedents reveals that blanket denial is neither legally justified nor consistent with the object of the RTI Act.

This article examines the legal position on disclosure of evaluated answer sheets, the scope of exemptions, and the limits of reliance on UPSC/CBSE judgments.

Right to Access One’s Own Answer Sheet

Under Section 3 of the RTI Act, every citizen has the right to information held by or under the control of a public authority.

Evaluated answer sheets are records held by a public authority and fall squarely within the definition of “information” under Section 2(f) of the Act.

The Supreme Court, in CBSE & Anr. v. Aditya Bandopadhyay (2011), clearly held that:

An examinee has the right to inspect or obtain copies of his evaluated answer books under the RTI Act.

The Court rejected the argument that answer sheets are held in a fiduciary capacity and clarified that disclosure is permissible, subject to reasonable safeguards such as masking the identity of examiners.

Thus, the general rule under the RTI Act is disclosure, not secrecy.

Misplaced Reliance on UPSC v. Angesh Kumar

Public authorities frequently rely on UPSC v. Angesh Kumar (2018) to deny access to answer sheets. However, this judgment does not create an absolute bar against disclosure.

The Supreme Court’s reasoning in Angesh Kumar was based on:

• the enormous scale of the Civil Services Examination,
• participation by lakhs of candidates,
• multiple optional subjects,
• scaling, moderation, and standardisation mechanisms, and
• serious concerns regarding administrative impracticability.

The Court’s decision was therefore fact-specific and grounded in the potential disruption of a complex, ongoing examination ecosystem.

Applying this judgment mechanically to limited recruitment examinations or concluded selection processes is legally unsustainable.

Distinction Between Academic Examinations and Recruitment Processes

Judicial precedents relating to academic bodies like CBSE and UPSC cannot be blindly transplanted to all examinations conducted by public authorities.

There is a material distinction between:

recurring academic examinations involving large numbers of candidates, and

one-time recruitment examinations conducted by government departments, courts, or statutory bodies.

Where:

• the recruitment process has concluded,
• the number of candidates is limited, and
• only personal evaluated answer sheets are sought,
• the rationale of administrative burden or systemic disruption does not apply.

Section 7(9): No Blanket Shield Against Disclosure

Section 7(9) of the RTI Act is often invoked to deny information on the ground of “disproportionate diversion of resources.” However, courts and the Central Information Commission have repeatedly held that:

Section 7(9) does not create an exemption, and

it only permits providing information in an alternative form, not outright denial.

Supplying a single candidate’s evaluated answer sheet and marking scheme, particularly after the completion of an examination, cannot ordinarily be termed a disproportionate diversion of resources.

Transparency in Recruitment and Public Confidence

Recruitment to public posts must inspire confidence in fairness and objectivity. Transparency after the conclusion of selection:

• strengthens institutional credibility,
• reduces suspicion and arbitrariness, and
• allows candidates to understand evaluation standards.
• Seeking one’s own answer sheet for self-assessment or personal improvement is a legitimate purpose and aligns with the spirit of the RTI Act.

Role of the Central Information Commission

Where first appeals are dismissed mechanically or without reasoned analysis, the Second Appeal before the Central Information Commission (CIC) becomes crucial.

• The CIC has the authority to:
• examine whether exemptions are correctly applied,
• distinguish inapplicable judicial precedents, and
• balance transparency with administrative efficiency.
• Each case must be assessed on its own facts, not on generalized assumptions.

Notes

The RTI Act does not support blanket denial of evaluated answer sheets. Judicial precedents such as CBSE v. Aditya Bandopadhyay affirm the right of examinees to access their answer scripts, while UPSC v. Angesh Kumar must be confined to its unique factual context.

Public authorities must move away from mechanical reliance on case law and adopt a fact-sensitive, reasoned approach. Transparency in recruitment is not a threat to administration—it is a cornerstone of good governance.

About RTI Lawyer – Legal Light Consulting

RTI Lawyer, a division of Legal Light Consulting, provides legal guidance on RTI applications, appeals, and compliance across India. Our focus is on clarity, legality, and transparency, ensuring that citizens and institutions alike understand their rights and obligations under the RTI Act.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)

RTI on Evaluated Answer Sheets & Recruitment Examinations

1. Can an examinee seek a copy of their evaluated answer sheet under the RTI Act?

Yes. Evaluated answer sheets are considered “information” under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act. An examinee is legally entitled to seek a copy of their own evaluated answer script, subject to reasonable safeguards such as masking the identity of examiners.

2. Does the RTI Act allow access to marking schemes or model answers?

In general, yes. Marking schemes or model answers used for evaluation can be sought under the RTI Act, particularly after the examination or recruitment process has concluded, unless a specific exemption under Sections 8 or 9 of the Act is clearly applicable.

3. Can public authorities deny answer sheets by citing UPSC or CBSE judgments?

• Not automatically. Judgments relating to UPSC or CBSE examinations are fact-specific and cannot be applied mechanically to all examinations. Authorities must examine:
• the scale of the examination,
• whether the process is concluded, and
• whether disclosure would genuinely cause harm or disproportionate burden.
• Blanket reliance on such judgments is legally unsustainable.

4. What did the Supreme Court hold in CBSE v. Aditya Bandopadhyay?

The Supreme Court held that:

• an examinee has the right to inspect or obtain copies of evaluated answer books, and
• answer sheets are not held in a fiduciary capacity.
• The Court allowed disclosure with safeguards, such as concealing the identity of examiners.

5. Does UPSC v. Angesh Kumar bar disclosure of answer sheets?

No. The judgment in UPSC v. Angesh Kumar does not create a blanket prohibition. It was based on the unique scale and complexity of the Civil Services Examination involving lakhs of candidates and administrative impracticability.

Its application depends entirely on the facts of each case.

6. Are academic examinations and recruitment examinations treated the same under RTI?

No. Academic examinations conducted by bodies like CBSE or UPSC differ significantly from one-time recruitment examinations conducted by public authorities. Courts and information commissions recognize this distinction while deciding RTI requests.

7. Can Section 7(9) of the RTI Act be used to deny information?

No. Section 7(9) does not create an exemption. It only allows information to be provided in an alternative form if supplying it in the requested form would disproportionately divert resources. It cannot justify outright denial of information.

8. Is seeking one’s own answer sheet against public interest?

No. Seeking access to one’s own evaluated answer sheet for self-assessment or improvement is a legitimate exercise of the right to information. Transparency after the conclusion of an examination serves public interest by promoting fairness and accountability.

9. Does disclosure of answer sheets affect future examinations?

Not necessarily. When disclosure is sought after the recruitment or examination process is complete, and with appropriate safeguards, it does not prejudice future examinations or institutional integrity.

10. What if the CPIO or First Appellate Authority rejects the RTI request?

If an RTI request is rejected without proper reasoning or by mechanically citing case laws, the applicant has the right to file a Second Appeal before the Central Information Commission (CIC) under Section 19(3) of the RTI Act.

11. Does the CIC examine case law applicability independently?

• Yes. The Central Information Commission examines whether:
• exemptions are correctly invoked,
• case laws are factually applicable, and
• the public authority has applied its mind properly.
• Each case is decided on its own facts, not on general assumptions.

12. Why is transparency in recruitment important?

• Transparency in recruitment:
• enhances public confidence,
• reduces arbitrariness,
• strengthens institutional credibility, and
• aligns with the objectives of good governance.
• The RTI Act plays a crucial role in achieving these goals.

About RTI Lawyer – Legal Light Consulting

RTI Lawyer, a division of Legal Light Consulting, provides professional guidance on RTI applications, appeals, and compliance. Our approach is focused on lawful transparency, clarity of rights, and effective use of the RTI Act.