Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 288 views

    Cbse Vs Aditya Bandopadhyay: Prince Kumar (A049) Abhinav Khadikar (A015)

    Uploaded by

    Srishti Srivastava
    The Supreme Court held that CBSE could not deny access to evaluated answer sheets based on a fiduciary relationship exemption or its bylaws. It found that answer sheets fall under the definition of "information" in the RTI Act, and while CBSE has a relationship of trust with students, it does not have the level of control or influence required for a fiduciary relationship exemption. The RTI Act provisions take precedence over CBSE bylaws. Allowing access to answer sheets also satisfies the larger public interest in transparency.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Cbse Vs Aditya Bandopadhyay: Prince Kumar (A049) Abhinav Khadikar (A015)

    Uploaded by

    Srishti Srivastava
    288 views6 pages
    The Supreme Court held that CBSE could not deny access to evaluated answer sheets based on a fiduciary relationship exemption or its bylaws. It found that answer sheets fall under the definition of "information" in the RTI Act, and while CBSE has a relationship of trust with students, it does not have the level of control or influence required for a fiduciary relationship exemption. The RTI Act provisions take precedence over CBSE bylaws. Allowing access to answer sheets also satisfies the larger public interest in transparency.

    Original Title

    Untitled

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Supreme Court held that CBSE could not deny access to evaluated answer sheets based on a fiduciary relationship exemption or its bylaws. It found that answer sheets fall under the definition of "information" in the RTI Act, and while CBSE has a relationship of trust with students, it does not have the level of control or influence required for a fiduciary relationship exemption. The RTI Act provisions take precedence over CBSE bylaws. Allowing access to answer sheets also satisfies the larger public interest in transparency.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pptx, pdf, or txt
    288 views6 pages

    Cbse Vs Aditya Bandopadhyay: Prince Kumar (A049) Abhinav Khadikar (A015)

    Uploaded by

    Srishti Srivastava
    The Supreme Court held that CBSE could not deny access to evaluated answer sheets based on a fiduciary relationship exemption or its bylaws. It found that answer sheets fall under the definition of "information" in the RTI Act, and while CBSE has a relationship of trust with students, it does not have the level of control or influence required for a fiduciary relationship exemption. The RTI Act provisions take precedence over CBSE bylaws. Allowing access to answer sheets also satisfies the larger public interest in transparency.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pptx, pdf, or txt
    of 6

    CBSE VS ADITYA

    BANDOPADHYAY
    (2011) 8 SCC 497

    PRINCE KUMAR (A049)


    ABHINAV KHADIKAR (A015)
    FACTS
    • The respondent appeared for the examination conducted by the appellant

    and wasn't satisfied with his result. He filed an application under the

    Right to Information Act, 2005 ['RTI Act"] to allow him to view his

    evaluated answer sheets. This was rejected by the appellant. So, he filed a

    writ petition before the Calcutta High Court, which allowed the petition.

    • CBSE denied the Respondent on grounds that their Bye-Laws prohibited

    such action, and also that they were exempted under Section 8(1)(e) of the

    Right to Information Act, 2005 as they held a "fiduciary" relationship

    with the students.

    • Section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act 2005 exempts information available to a


    person in his fiduciary relationship from disclosure unless the competent
    authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure
    of such information.
    ISSUES

    • Whether or not an examining body • Whether or not the by-laws of CBSE


    holds the evaluated answer books "in play a role in the present scenario.
    a fiduciary relationship" and (Examination Bye-Law 61(4), which
    consequently has no obligation to clearly mentioned that no candidate
    give inspection of the evaluated shall be entitled to re-evaluation of
    answer books under section 8(1)(e) answer books or
    of RTI Act. disclosure/inspection of answer
    book.)
    JUDGEMENT
    • The Court held that the corrected answer-sheets of a candidate appearing
    for a public examination conducted by statutory bodies like CBSE being a
    "document, manuscript record, and opinion' fell under the ambit of
    "information" as defined in section 2(f) of the RTI Act.

    • Fiduciary Relationship usually arises in one of the following four


    situations:
    • When one person places trust in the faithful integrity of another, who as a
    result gains superiority or influence over the first.
    • When one person assumes control and responsibility for another.
    • When one person has a duty to act for or give advice to another on matters
    falling within the scope of the relationship, or
    • When there is a specific relationship that has traditionally been recognized
    as involving fiduciary duties, as with a lawyer and a client or a stockbroker
    and a customer.
    JUDGEMENT
    • The Court held that although it can be widely held that there exists a fiduciary
    relationship between the Board and its students, like one that exists in
    between the government and its people, it cannot be interpreted to the extent
    of exempting the Board from using the privilege under Section 8(1)(e) of the
    RTI Act.

    • The provisos of the RTI Act will prevail over the Bye-Laws of the CBSE with
    respect to examination Bye-Law 61(4).

    • The Court recognized that the right to information was a Fundamental Right
    as it was an aspect of the right to freedom of expression under Article 19. In
    this context, the RTI Act would prevail over the examination bye-laws.
    Therefore, the only objections that could be taken to public records being
    made available had to be found within the RTI Act.
    CONCLUSION/PERSONAL OPINION

    • The Court correctly allowed the examinees to access their answer sheets.

    • This judgement was only the start as students still faced certain
    difficulties.

    • They had been charged exorbitant fees and this discouraged students
    from requesting to see their papers.

    • Eventually, the fees were reduced to as low as Rs. 2 as students kept


    fighting for lower fees

    • In the end, this is just one singular case where the importance of RTI has
    been highlighted and this Act gives immense hope that certain institutions
    will continue to be held accountable in the future.

    You might also like