Moneylife: Pune: Thursday,
June 27, 2013.
Despite a
previous Supreme Court judgment which makes it mandatory for all education
boards to put up the ‘model’ answers on its website, the Pune division of the
state’s education board refuses to do so.
Appalled by
the low marks they scored in various subjects, several students appearing for
this year’s Standard XII examinations approached Pune-based Right to
Information (RTI) activists to help them with the disclosure of the `model’
answer papers, so that they could cross check if they have been assessed
correctly. The Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education
(MSBSHSE) that held the examinations, however, simply rejected the request for
model answers from RTI activists Vivek Velankar and Vishwas Sahasrabudhe thus,
displaying contempt of the Supreme Court.
The model
answer papers, used as reference by examiners while correcting the papers are
public documents after the results are declared and fall under the category of
suo motu disclosure under Section 4 of the RTI Act. Yet the Secretary of the
Board has denied this information to the activists, stating in his letter of 16
June 2013 that, “model answers are confidential documents and since they are
written in a concise form, they cannot be publicly disclosed through our
website.” This has affected hundreds of students seeking admission to
professional colleges this admission season.
Outraged at
this refusal of information, Velankar has now filed a RTI demanding copies of
`model’ answers papers to be uploaded on the website that would give solace to
students to cross check if the marks they scored are in tune with the model
answers set by the Board. He states that, “this year DTE, NEET and IIT (JEE
Advance) have uploaded their `model’ answer papers on their respective websites
and brought about transparency in their examination system. Why is the HSC Board
trying to veil it in secrecy?”
Earlier, on 9
September 2011, the Supreme Court, while hearing a case directed the Institute
of Chartered Accountants of India (ICAI) to put in public domain model answer
sheets for examinations held by the body. The apex court had said, “…therefore,
Section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act does not bar or prohibit the disclosure of
question papers, model answers (solutions to questions) and instructions if any
given to the examiners and moderators after the examination and after the
evaluation of answer scripts is completed, as at that stage they will not harm
the competitive position of any third party.
The SC also
thwarted any previous judgments given otherwise and stated that, “we therefore,
reject the contention of the appellant that if information is exempt at any
given point of time it continues to be exempt for all time to come.
In 2011,
aggrieved students of the ICAI examination, Shaunak H Satya and others had
filed a RTI application with the examining body demanding copies of model
answer sheets but the information was rejected by the PIO as well as the CIC.
The CIC in
its order stated that making model answer papers public amounts to
‘compromising’ the examination process and comes under “fiduciary
relationship”.
The CIC order
stated that, “This request of the appellant cannot be without seriously and
perhaps irretrievably compromising the entire examination process. An
instruction issued by a public authority—in this case, examination conducting
authority—to its examiners is strictly confidential. There is an implied
contract between the examiners and the examination conducting public authority.
It would be inappropriate to disclose this information. This item of
information too, like the previous one, attracts Section 8(1)(d) being the
intellectual property of the public authority having being developed through
careful empirical and intellectual study and analysis over the years. I,
therefore, hold that this item of query attracts exemption under section
8(1)(e) as well as Section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act. ‘’
The CIC in
its decision had also stated, “Respondents have explained that what they
provide to the examiners is ‘solutions’ and not ‘model answers’ as assumed by
the appellant. For the aid of the students and examinees, ‘suggested answers’ to
the questions in an exam are brought out and sold in the market. It would be
wholly inappropriate to provide to the students the solutions given to the
questions only for the exclusive use of the examiners and moderators. Given the
confidentiality of interaction between the public authority holding the
examinations and the examiners, the ‘solutions’ qualifies to be items barred by
Section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act. This item of information also attracts Section
8(1)(d) being the exclusive intellectual property of the public authority.
Respondents have rightly advised the appellant to secure the ‘suggested
answers’ to the questions from the open market, where these are available for
sale.”
This
unfavourable verdict by the CIC prompted the appellants to move the Bombay High
Court. In its order of 30 November 2010, the High Court gave a verdict in
favour of the students. The order said, “According to the Central Information
Commission the solutions which have been supplied by the Board to the examiners
are given in confidence and therefore, they are entitled to protection under
Section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act. Section 8(1)(e) does not protect confidential
information and the claim of intellectual property has not made by the
respondent No.2 anywhere. In the reply it is suggested that the suggested
answers are published and sold in open market by the Board. Therefore, there
can be no confidentiality about suggested answers.
The high
court further observed that: “In our opinion, the orders of both authorities in
this respect also suffer from non-application of mind and therefore they are
liable to be set aside. We find that the right given under the Right to
Information Act has been dealt with by the authorities under that Act in most
casual manner without properly applying their minds to the material on record.
In our opinion, therefore information sought… could not have been denied by the
authorities to the petitioner. The principal defence of the respondent… is that
the information is confidential. Till the result of the examination is
declared, the information sought by the petitioner has to be treated as
confidential, but once the result is declared, in our opinion, that information
cannot be treated as confidential. We were not shown anything which would even
indicate that it is necessary to keep the information in relation to the
examination which is over and the result is also declared as confidential.”
Thereafter, the institution moved the Supreme Court but lost the case.
RTI activist
Sunil Ahya states that, “in May 2013, the Delhi High Court while disposing of a
petition filed against the Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) by 15
students who obtained lower than expected scores in the Joint Engineering
Examination (JEE) Main exam, the court directed the board to provide them with
their Optical Mark Recognition (OMR) sheet, calculation sheet and answer keys
before 29 May 2013.”
In June 2012,
the Haryana State Information Commission had directed the state’s School Board
to upload the `model’ answers on its website. State Information Commissioner
Urvashi Gulati had stated in her order that, “The aim of the Act is to bring
transparency and accountability. It is, therefore, directed that the Board
should ensure availability of ‘answer key’ to questions on its website in
future.”
Last month,
the Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) agreed to disclose the `model’
answers of the Joint Entrance Exam (JEE) main examination (formerly known as
AIEEE) by charging a fee of Rs500 per applicant besides the cost of the
Photostat copies. However, it disclosed it after the deadline of students to
take admission to the advanced course of JEE was over, thus denying the
aggrieved students of re-checking their marks and checking whether they were
eligible for the advanced course, before the date of closure of admission.
Sadly,
despite the RTI Act being a law to empower the faceless citizens, it is the
public authorities at various offices who have put a spoke in the wheel of Act.
.JPG)
.JPG)
