The Central Information Commission (CIC) has directed the Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) to provide “point-wise categorical” information, as permitted under the RTI Act, on examination expenditure
and answer books, including details of the tendering and procurement process for Class 10 and Class 12 board examinations. Setting aside CBSE’s earlier refusal, the transparency panel instructed the board to issue revised replies, stating that information exempt from disclosure may be redacted or masked under Section 10 of the RTI Act, and that any denial under Section 8(1)(d) must be properly justified.
The case arose from an RTI application seeking details of answer books used in Class 10 and Class 12 board examinations during the 2023-24 and 2024-25 sessions, including paper quality, number of pages, size, purchase cost, total expenditure, GST payments and tender process details for procurement of answer sheets, reported PTI. In its response, CBSE disclosed some specifications, stating that the paper used ranged from 60 GSM to 120 GSM, answer books had 8, 20, 32, 40 or 48 pages, and were available in sizes 22 x 28 cm and 37.5 x 54.5 cm. The board also said it did not maintain records of the weight of individual answer books.
However, CBSE denied information on the purchase cost of answer books, the quantity procured and the total expenditure incurred, citing Section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act. On questions about the tender process, names of participating firms, rates quoted and vendor selection, the board claimed the matter related to “confidential” and “sensitive” activities of board examinations and invoked exemptions under Sections 8(1)(d), 8(1)(e) and 8(1)(g). CBSE further stated that examination fee expenditure data was maintained by financial year rather than academic session and declined to provide session-wise expenditure details. It also informed the applicant that expenditure on practical examinations was booked under a broader expenditure head and could not be segregated.
The appellant challenged this response before the CIC, arguing that larger public interest and transparency required disclosure of procurement and expenditure information. Information Commissioner Sudha Rani Relangi noted that the core issue was the denial of information on the “tender process for purchase of answer sheet and other related stationary materials” despite the appellant’s claim of larger public interest. The Commission found that the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) had denied information under multiple exemption clauses “without giving any proper justification in this regard”. It also observed that the CPIO neither appeared for the hearing nor submitted any written statement to justify the denial, the PTI report added.
“Accordingly, the impugned reply of the CPIO dated 18.03.2025 in the absence of any justification for denial of the information sought, is hereby set aside,” the CIC ruled. Referring to transparency in public procurement, the Commission observed that the Supreme Court and the CIC had “time and again” stressed that such exemptions must be interpreted strictly to ensure accountability in public procurement and contracts by public authorities.
“Now, considering the averments of the Appellant during hearing regarding irregularity on such tenders, the Commission, deems it fit, to direct, CPIO to revisit the contents of the RTI application in question and provide a revised point-wise categorical replies along with relevant permissible information that can be provided as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005,” the CIC said. It further stated that the CPIO should have disclosed permissible information and redacted only those portions exempt from disclosure under the RTI Act.
“Information which are exempted from disclosure be redacted/masked under Section 10 of the RTI Act, 2005. In case the information sought is covered under Section 8 (1)(d) of the RTI Act, 2005, the CPIO may justify such denial by giving justification under Section 19 (5) of the RTI Act, 2005,” the order stated. Section 8(1)(d) covers information such as commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants disclosure.
