The Central Information Commission (CIC) has recently instructed the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) of Delhi University (DU) to provide a valid justification for withholding records related to the evaluation of semester examination answer scripts by the Faculty of Law. This directive arises from the case Rishabh Mishra v. The CPIO, University of Delhi.
The CPIO had argued that many of the requests made by the appellant, Rishabh Mishra, were seeking interpretations or opinions rather than concrete information. However, Information Commissioner Sudha Rani Relangi clarified that the CPIO is not obliged to create new information, offer opinions, interpret records, or provide explanations not already documented.
Commissioner Relangi emphasized that existing documents, including marking schemes, written instructions to examiners, and related guidelines, are considered information under Section 2(f) of the Right to Information (RTI) Act, provided they are not protected under exemptions in Section 8 or Section 9.
The CPIO further contended that the evaluation process is confidential and held in a fiduciary capacity. Nonetheless, the Commission stated that labeling information as ‘confidential’ does not automatically justify denial under the RTI Act. Any refusal to disclose must be linked explicitly to an exemption under Section 8 or Section 9. It further noted that invoking the fiduciary exemption under Section 8(1)(e) requires the university to establish the fiduciary nature of the information sought.
This decision follows a second appeal filed by Rishabh Mishra under the RTI Act. Mishra sought specific information about the marking scheme, training records for examiners, measures to prevent evaluators from identifying students, quality checks in the evaluation process, and details of any digital evaluation methods employed for the Faculty of Law’s three-year LLB semester exams.
More Read
The CPIO had initially forwarded Mishra’s queries to the Joint Registrar (Examinations) and informed him that a response was pending. Unsatisfied, Mishra lodged a first appeal, prompting the First Appellate Authority to instruct the university to respond within two weeks. When no response was received, Mishra escalated the matter with a second appeal to the CIC.
The Commission observed that while the CPIO had partly complied with the First Appellate Authority’s directions, the confidentiality claim was not adequately supported by specific exemptions. As a result, the CIC ordered the CPIO to submit a signed statement clearly identifying each withheld item, citing the exact legal provision relied upon, and detailing the fiduciary relationship claimed under Section 8(1)(e). Additionally, the CPIO must examine whether non-exempt portions of the records can be disclosed, as permitted under Section 10 of the RTI Act, and has been given two weeks to fulfill these requirements.
