SCC Online: New Delhi: Thursday, 24th September
2026.
The Central Information Commission held that “a general assertion of confidentiality or fiduciary capacity cannot substitute the statutory requirement of demonstrating the applicability of an exemption”.
Central Information
Commission, New Delhi: While considering the scope of disclosure under the
Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) in relation to the evaluation of law
semester examination answer scripts at the Faculty of Law, University of Delhi,
Sudha Rani Relangi, Information Commissioner, held that while the Central
Public Information Officer (CPIO) could not be required to create information
which did not exist, existing records could not be denied merely because they
concerned the examination or evaluation process.
Brief Facts
The appellant filed an RTI application dated 7 June 2025 before the University of Delhi seeking information concerning the evaluation criteria, protocol and step-wise procedure adopted for assessment of law semester examination answer scripts for the 3-year LLB semester examinations conducted by the Faculty of Law, University of Delhi. The appellant sought, inter alia, certified copies of:
The CPIO responded on 7 July 2025 stating that relevant input from the Joint Registrar (Examinations) was still awaited and that the matter was being pursued with the officer concerned. The appellant was accordingly advised to contact the Joint Registrar (Examinations).
Aggrieved by the response, the appellant preferred a first appeal on 12 July 2025.
The First Appellate Authority (FAA), by order dated 5 August 2025, noted that the appellant had not received the information sought. Consequently, the FAA directed the Joint Registrar (Examinations) to provide the relevant disclosable information to the appellant, under intimation to the Information Section, within 2 weeks from receipt of the order.
The appellant alleged non-compliance with the FAA’s direction and approached the Central Information Commission (CIC) by way of the present second appeal.
Parties’ Contentions
The appellant pointed out the practice of denying information in vague terms and sought the CIC’s intervention.
The CPIO submitted that a point-wise reply together with relevant available inputs had already been supplied to the appellant by email dated 8 September 2025. The CPIO explained that answer scripts were evaluated according to the broad marking scheme and instructions contained in the question paper, together with necessary instructions issued by the Coordinator/Head Examiner to examiners for maintaining uniformity in the marking scheme. It was stated that no formal documentation of the meetings was endorsed to or maintained by the University’s Examination Branch.
The CPIO also contended that a majority of the appellant’s queries amounted to requests for clarification, which, according to the CPIO, did not conform to the statutory concept of “information” under Section 2(f). In addition, the CPIO asserted that the evaluation process and related information were confidential in nature and were held by the University in a fiduciary capacity and therefore could not be disclosed under the RTI Act.
Issues for Determination
Whether information relating to the evaluation of University examination answer scripts can be denied under the RTI Act merely because the applicant seeks explanations/clarifications or because the evaluation process is stated to be confidential and held in a fiduciary capacity.
Analysis
At the outset, the CIC reiterated that Section 2(f) contemplates disclosure of material or information held by or under the control of the public authority. Accordingly, the CPIO is “not required to create information, give an opinion, interpret records, or furnish explanations which are not available on the record”. Therefore, queries seeking reasons, justification, opinion or clarification regarding how an evaluation was undertaken would not, by themselves, constitute “information” under Section 2(f).
However, the CIC made it clear that this principle cannot be used to deny existing records merely because they concern examinations or evaluation. Where identifiable records such as prescribed marking schemes, written examiner instructions, notices, circulars, guidelines, records of decisions or other documents concerning the evaluation procedure are maintained by the University, they constitute “information” within Section 2(f), subject to the exemptions specifically available under Section 8 or Section 9, RTI Act.
Further, the CIC held that the University could not be directed to create records which admittedly did not exist. Nevertheless, the CPIO was required to clearly identify and disclose the records available and corresponding to the appellant’s queries, subject to lawful exemptions.
The CIC rejected the proposition that describing information as “confidential” is, by itself, sufficient to justify its denial. Any refusal of information must be traceable to a specific exemption under Section 8 or Section 9, RTI Act.
Likewise, Section 8(1)(e), concerning information available to a person in a fiduciary relationship, cannot be invoked mechanically. The public authority must establish the existence of the fiduciary relationship in respect of the particular information sought and demonstrate how the statutory exemption applies.
Decision and Directions
Although the CIC found that the CPIO had substantially responded to the appellant and furnished available information pursuant to the FAA’s directions, it held that the justification for withholding information relating to the evaluation process had not been adequately articulated with reference to a specific exemption under the RTI Act. A general assertion of confidentiality or fiduciary capacity could not substitute the statutory requirement of establishing an exemption.
Therefore, the CIC directed the CPIO to file a detailed, duly signed and dated written statement identifying:
[Rishabh Mishra v. CPIO, File No: CIC/UODEL/A/2025/641908, decided on 3-9-2026]
The Central Information Commission held that “a general assertion of confidentiality or fiduciary capacity cannot substitute the statutory requirement of demonstrating the applicability of an exemption”.
Brief Facts
The appellant filed an RTI application dated 7 June 2025 before the University of Delhi seeking information concerning the evaluation criteria, protocol and step-wise procedure adopted for assessment of law semester examination answer scripts for the 3-year LLB semester examinations conducted by the Faculty of Law, University of Delhi. The appellant sought, inter alia, certified copies of:
- rules, guidelines, circulars, manuals, orders and instructions governing
evaluation,
- model answers, marking schemes, sample evaluated scripts and scoring
rubrics,
- any weightage assigned to case law, legal principles, statutory provisions,
answer structure or word limits,
- the step-by-step evaluation procedure,
- whether scripts underwent moderation, rechecking or quality control,
- whether student identity was anonymised,
- mechanisms for standardisation to minimise examiner subjectivity,
- details of persons involved at different stages of evaluation,
- training, briefing or orientation provided to evaluators,
- moderation, double evaluation, cross-evaluation, auditing, peer review and
score-calibration mechanisms,
- marking or grading schemes,
- use of digital/on-screen evaluation, and
- where requested documents did not exist, a categorical statement to that
effect together with disclosure of existing formal or informal practices.
The CPIO responded on 7 July 2025 stating that relevant input from the Joint Registrar (Examinations) was still awaited and that the matter was being pursued with the officer concerned. The appellant was accordingly advised to contact the Joint Registrar (Examinations).
Aggrieved by the response, the appellant preferred a first appeal on 12 July 2025.
The First Appellate Authority (FAA), by order dated 5 August 2025, noted that the appellant had not received the information sought. Consequently, the FAA directed the Joint Registrar (Examinations) to provide the relevant disclosable information to the appellant, under intimation to the Information Section, within 2 weeks from receipt of the order.
The appellant alleged non-compliance with the FAA’s direction and approached the Central Information Commission (CIC) by way of the present second appeal.
Parties’ Contentions
The appellant pointed out the practice of denying information in vague terms and sought the CIC’s intervention.
The CPIO submitted that a point-wise reply together with relevant available inputs had already been supplied to the appellant by email dated 8 September 2025. The CPIO explained that answer scripts were evaluated according to the broad marking scheme and instructions contained in the question paper, together with necessary instructions issued by the Coordinator/Head Examiner to examiners for maintaining uniformity in the marking scheme. It was stated that no formal documentation of the meetings was endorsed to or maintained by the University’s Examination Branch.
The CPIO also contended that a majority of the appellant’s queries amounted to requests for clarification, which, according to the CPIO, did not conform to the statutory concept of “information” under Section 2(f). In addition, the CPIO asserted that the evaluation process and related information were confidential in nature and were held by the University in a fiduciary capacity and therefore could not be disclosed under the RTI Act.
Issues for Determination
Whether information relating to the evaluation of University examination answer scripts can be denied under the RTI Act merely because the applicant seeks explanations/clarifications or because the evaluation process is stated to be confidential and held in a fiduciary capacity.
Analysis
At the outset, the CIC reiterated that Section 2(f) contemplates disclosure of material or information held by or under the control of the public authority. Accordingly, the CPIO is “not required to create information, give an opinion, interpret records, or furnish explanations which are not available on the record”. Therefore, queries seeking reasons, justification, opinion or clarification regarding how an evaluation was undertaken would not, by themselves, constitute “information” under Section 2(f).
However, the CIC made it clear that this principle cannot be used to deny existing records merely because they concern examinations or evaluation. Where identifiable records such as prescribed marking schemes, written examiner instructions, notices, circulars, guidelines, records of decisions or other documents concerning the evaluation procedure are maintained by the University, they constitute “information” within Section 2(f), subject to the exemptions specifically available under Section 8 or Section 9, RTI Act.
Further, the CIC held that the University could not be directed to create records which admittedly did not exist. Nevertheless, the CPIO was required to clearly identify and disclose the records available and corresponding to the appellant’s queries, subject to lawful exemptions.
The CIC rejected the proposition that describing information as “confidential” is, by itself, sufficient to justify its denial. Any refusal of information must be traceable to a specific exemption under Section 8 or Section 9, RTI Act.
Likewise, Section 8(1)(e), concerning information available to a person in a fiduciary relationship, cannot be invoked mechanically. The public authority must establish the existence of the fiduciary relationship in respect of the particular information sought and demonstrate how the statutory exemption applies.
Decision and Directions
Although the CIC found that the CPIO had substantially responded to the appellant and furnished available information pursuant to the FAA’s directions, it held that the justification for withholding information relating to the evaluation process had not been adequately articulated with reference to a specific exemption under the RTI Act. A general assertion of confidentiality or fiduciary capacity could not substitute the statutory requirement of establishing an exemption.
Therefore, the CIC directed the CPIO to file a detailed, duly signed and dated written statement identifying:
- each item of information relating to the evaluation process that had been
denied or withheld,
- the reason for such denial,
- the precise provision of the RTI Act under which exemption was claimed,
- where Section 8(1)(e) was invoked, the nature of the alleged fiduciary
relationship and its applicability to the information sought, and
- whether any severable portion could be disclosed under Section 10, RTI Act.
[Rishabh Mishra v. CPIO, File No: CIC/UODEL/A/2025/641908, decided on 3-9-2026]
.JPG)
.JPG)
