Re: [HumJanenge] Fwd: The Supreme Court decision on answer papers

Dear Sh.Sarbajit Roy ji,

 

      Thanks for providing decision with your comments indicating probale weakening of RTI act by this decision&  not permitting copy of answer copy permitting only inspection.

 

       Whole decision have focussed in answering four issues in para-8 as following---

8. On the contentions urged, the following questions arise for our

consideration :

(i) Whether an examinee's right to information under the RTI Act

includes a right to inspect his evaluated answer books in a public

examination or taking certified copies thereof?

(ii)

Whether the decisions of this court in Maharashtra State Board of

Secondary Education

[1984 (4) SCC 27] and other cases referred to

above, in any way affect or interfere with the right of an examinee

seeking inspection of his answer books or seeking certified copies

thereof?

(iii) Whether an examining body holds the evaluated answer books "in a

fiduciary relationship" and consequently has no obligation to give

inspection of the evaluated answer books under section 8 (1)(e) of

RTI Act?

(iv) If the examinee is entitled to inspection of the evaluated answer books

or seek certified copies thereof, whether such right is subject to any

limitations, conditions or safeguards?

 

     In para 28----SC have permitted copy after severance u/s 10 (by hiding identity of all concerned) as following while reply to forth and last issue in para--8 of the decisoin--

Re : Question (iv)

28. When an examining body engages the services of an examiner to

evaluate the answer-books, the examining body expects the examiner not to

disclose the information regarding evaluation to anyone other than the

examining body. Similarly the examiner also expects that his name and

particulars would not be disclosed to the candidates whose answer-books are

evaluated by him. In the event of such information being made known, a

disgruntled examinee who is not satisfied with the evaluation of the answer

books, may act to the prejudice of the examiner by attempting to endanger

his physical safety. Further, any apprehension on the part of the examiner

that there may be danger to his physical safety, if his identity becomes

known to the examinees, may come in the way of effective discharge of his

duties. The above applies not only to the examiner, but also to the

scrutiniser, co-ordinator, and head-examiner who deal with the answer book.

The answer book usually contains not only the signature and code number of

the examiner, but also the signatures and code number of the scrutiniser/coordinator/

head examiner. The information as to the names or particulars of

the examiners/co-ordinators/scrutinisers/head examiners are therefore

exempted from disclosure under section 8(1)(g) of RTI Act, on the ground

that if such information is disclosed, it may endanger their physical safety.

Therefore, if the examinees are to be given access to evaluated answerbooks

either by permitting inspection or by granting certified copies, such

access will have to be given only to that part of the answer-book which does

not contain any information or signature of the examiners/coordinators/

scrutinisers/head examiners, exempted from disclosure under

section 8(1)(g) of RTI Act. Those portions of the answer-books which

contain information regarding the examiners/co-ordinators/scrutinisers/head

examiners or which may disclose their identity with reference to signature or

initials, shall have to be removed, covered, or otherwise severed from the

non-exempted part of the answer-books, under section 10 of RTI Act.

Para---36 is excellent in support of section-4 compliance devoting 2-full pages supporting section-4

36. Section 19(8) of RTI Act has entrusted the Central/State Information

Commissions, with the power to require any public authority to take any

such steps as may be necessary to secure the compliance with the provisions

of the Act. Apart from the generality of the said power, clause (a) of section

19(8) refers to six specific powers, to implement the provision of the Act.

Sub-clause (i) empowers a Commission to require the public authority to

provide access to information if so requested in a particular 'form' (that is

either as a document, micro film, compact disc, pendrive, etc.). This is to

secure compliance with section 7(9) of the Act. Sub-clause (ii) empowers a

Commission to require the public authority to appoint a Central Public

Information Officer or State Public Information Officer. This is to secure

compliance with section 5 of the Act. Sub-clause (iii) empowers the

Commission to require a public authority to publish certain information or

categories of information. This is to secure compliance with section 4(1) and

(2) of RTI Act. Sub-clause (iv) empowers a Commission to require a public

authority to make necessary changes to its practices relating to the

maintenance, management and destruction of the records. This is to secure

compliance with clause (a) of section 4(1) of the Act. Sub-clause (v)

empowers a Commission to require the public authority to increase the

training for its officials on the right to information. This is to secure

compliance with sections 5, 6 and 7 of the Act. Sub-clause (vi) empowers a

Commission to require the public authority to provide annual reports in

regard to the compliance with clause (b) of section 4(1). This is to ensure

compliance with the provisions of clause (b) of section 4(1) of the Act. The

power under section 19(8) of the Act however does not extend to requiring a

public authority to take any steps which are not required or contemplated to

secure compliance with the provisions of the Act or to issue directions

beyond the provisions of the Act. The power under section 19(8) of the Act

is intended to be used by the Commissions to ensure compliance with the

Act, in particular ensure that every public authority maintains its records

duly catalogued and indexed in the manner and in the form which facilitates

the right to information and ensure that the records are computerized, as

required under clause (a) of section 4(1) of the Act; and to ensure that the

information enumerated in clauses (b) and (c) of sections 4(1) of the Act are

published and disseminated, and are periodically updated as provided in sub-

sections (3) and (4) of section 4 of the Act. If the 'information' enumerated

in clause (b) of section 4(1) of the Act are effectively disseminated (by

publications in print and on websites and other effective means), apart from

providing transparency and accountability, citizens will be able to access

relevant information and avoid unnecessary applications for information

under the Act.

So this decision seem to strengthen RTI act in view of providing answer copy and section-4 compliance.Please suggest.

with regards

manoj k.kamra

 

 

 

 

On Sun, Aug 14, 2011 at 7:52 AM, Sarbajit Roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com> wrote:

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: RTI Prekshak <rtiprekshak@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 13 Aug 2011 09:30:40 +0530
Subject: The Supreme Court decision on answer papers
To: "C J Karira" <cjkarira@gmail.com>

There is considerable elation over the Supreme Court's decision on the
answer papers. Is there anything to celebrate?

The Supreme Court judgement is attached for convenience

*The following obiters may create a lot of damage and encourage
arbitrariness in denial of information*