Challenges in Accessing Evaluated Answer Sheets Under RTI: Insights for Examinees

In the realm of competitive examinations conducted by public authorities, transparency in evaluation processes is crucial for maintaining trust and fairness. However, obtaining copies of one’s own evaluated answer sheets through the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005, can often be a complex journey.

As RTI lawyers at Legal Light Consulting, we frequently assist clients navigating these hurdles. This article explores the general legal framework, key judicial precedents, and procedural steps involved, drawing from common scenarios in recruitment exams without delving into specific case details.

Understanding the RTI Framework for Exam Records

The RTI Act empowers citizens to seek information from public authorities to promote accountability. Under Section 6(1), an individual can request records like evaluated answer sheets, marking schemes, or detailed score breakdowns.

This is particularly relevant for exams where candidates suspect discrepancies in scoring, as access allows for self-assessment and potential appeals.

However, public authorities may deny such requests by invoking exemptions under Section 8, such as fiduciary relationships (Section 8(1)(e)) or risks to the examination system’s integrity (Section 8(1)(g)).

In practice, responses often cite judicial rulings to justify non-disclosure, emphasizing the need to balance transparency with administrative efficiency.

Key Judicial Precedents Shaping RTI Disclosures

Several landmark judgments from the Supreme Court and High Courts guide how RTI applies to exam records:

1. CBSE & Anr. vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors. (2011): This pivotal Supreme Court ruling affirmed that evaluated answer sheets constitute “information” under the RTI Act. The Court held that examinees have a right to inspect or obtain copies of their own sheets, rejecting blanket claims of fiduciary exemptions.
2. It allowed redactions (e.g., masking evaluator identities) to protect privacy but warned against misuse that burdens authorities.
3. This judgment leans toward disclosure, especially for personal verification post-results, and has been cited in numerous Central Information Commission (CIC) decisions to mandate access in academic contexts.
4. Union Public Service Commission vs. Angesh Kumar & Ors. (2018): In contrast, this Supreme Court decision restricted disclosures in large-scale competitive exams, such as those conducted by the UPSC.
5. The Court reasoned that revealing raw marks, scaling methods, or model answers could disrupt the system, enable pattern-guessing, and impose undue administrative loads. Exemptions under Sections 8(1)(e) and 8(1)(g) were upheld to safeguard evaluator safety and process confidentiality.
6. This applies primarily to high-volume exams with lakhs of candidates, where “floodgates” of requests could render operations unworkable.
7. Prashant Ramesh Chakkarwar vs. Union Public Service Commission & Anr. (2010, Delhi High Court): This case reinforced non-disclosure for system-wide details like cut-offs or answer keys in competitive recruitments, citing risks to fairness under Sections 8(1)(d) (commercial confidence) and 8(1)(g).
8. It distinguishes high-stakes public-service exams from smaller-scale processes.

A key takeaway is the distinction between exam scales: In vast national exams, restrictions prevail to protect integrity, but smaller recruitments (e.g., limited vacancies with thousands of candidates) may favor disclosure, as per CIC interpretations.

For instance, CIC rulings often direct provision of personal answer sheets in departmental or judicial staff exams, applying the CBSE precedent liberally where no systemic harm is evident.

The RTI Appeal Process: From Denial to Resolution

If an RTI request is denied, the Act provides a structured appeal mechanism:

• First Appeal (Section 19(1)): Filed within 30 days to the First Appellate Authority (FAA) within the same organization.
• Grounds should address misapplication of exemptions, cite favorable judgments, and argue why disclosure serves public interest without harm (e.g., recruitment complete, personal use only).
• Second Appeal (Section 19(3)): If unsatisfied, appeal to the CIC within 90 days. Emphasize factual distinctions (e.g., small exam scale vs. UPSC), seek penalties for PIO dereliction under Section 20(1), and request compensation for delays under Section 19(8)(b).
• CIC decisions post-2018 often differentiate cases, ordering disclosure in non-large-scale scenarios.

Common pitfalls include generic denials without point-wise reasoning, which violate Section 7(8)(i). As RTI experts, we recommend documenting arguments meticulously, including CIC precedents like those penalizing PIOs for non-compliance.

Practical Advice for Examinees

• File Strategically: Request only personal records post-results to avoid exemptions.
• Distinguish Your Case: Highlight if the exam is small-scale or non-competitive, reducing “burden” claims.
• Seek Professional Help: Navigating judgments and appeals requires expertise to avoid procedural errors.

At Legal Light Consulting, our RTI lawyers specialize in crafting robust appeals, ensuring compliance while advocating for your rights.

If facing similar denials, consult us for tailored guidance—transparency is your right, and we’re here to illuminate the path.

This article is for informational purposes and does not constitute legal advice. For specific queries, contact Legal Light Consulting.