CIC directs CBSE to disclose details on board exam expenditure and answer book procurement

The Central Information Commission (CIC) has ordered the Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) to revisit an RTI application seeking details on board examination expenditure and the procurement of answer books, directing the board to provide a revised and more detailed response in accordance with the law.

The Commission set aside CBSE's earlier reply and instructed the board to furnish “point-wise categorical” information wherever disclosure is permissible under the Right to Information (RTI) Act.

It also clarified that exempt information may be redacted under Section 10 of the Act, while any denial under Section 8(1)(d) must be properly justified.

The case arose from an RTI application seeking information on answer books used in Class 10 and Class 12 board examinations during the 2023-24 and 2024-25 academic sessions.

The applicant requested details including paper quality, page count, dimensions, procurement costs, total expenditure, GST payments, and the tendering process followed for purchasing answer sheets.

In its response, CBSE shared some technical specifications of the answer books, stating that paper quality ranged from 60 GSM to 120 GSM. It also said the answer books contained 8, 20, 32, 40, or 48 pages and were available in sizes of 22 x 28 cm and 37.5 x 54.5 cm.

The board, however, said it did not maintain records on the weight of individual answer books. It declined to disclose information related to procurement costs, the number of answer books purchased, and total expenditure incurred on procurement, citing Section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act.

CBSE also withheld information regarding the tender process, including the names of participating firms, quoted rates, and vendor selection criteria.

The board argued that these details were linked to the “confidential” and “sensitive” activities of board examinations and claimed exemptions under Sections 8(1)(d), 8(1)(e), and 8(1)(g) of the Act.

The board further stated that expenditure related to examination fees was maintained on a financial-year basis rather than by academic session, making it difficult to provide the requested figures.

It also said expenditure on practical examinations was recorded under a broader expenditure category and could not be separated.

The applicant challenged the response before the CIC, arguing that transparency and larger public interest warranted disclosure of procurement and expenditure-related information.

Information Commissioner Sudha Rani Relangi noted that the central issue in the appeal concerned the denial of information related to the “tender process for purchase of answer sheet and other related stationary materials” despite the applicant's argument that public interest justified disclosure.

The Commission observed that the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) had invoked multiple exemption clauses “without giving any proper justification in this regard."

It also noted that the CPIO neither attended the hearing nor submitted a written explanation defending the denial of information.

“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 said.

Referring to transparency in public procurement, the Commission observed that “time and again” both the Supreme Court and the CIC have stressed that such exemptions should be interpreted narrowly to promote accountability in public contracts and procurement.

“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.

The Commission also emphasized that information exempt from disclosure should be withheld only to the extent necessary, while all other permissible information should be released.

“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 said.

Section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act covers information involving commercial confidence, trade secrets, or intellectual property that could harm the competitive position of a third party unless a larger public interest justifies its disclosure.