Tripura High Court
Sri Sourav Chakraborty vs The State Of Tripura on 28 April, 2025
Page 1 of 4
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
IA No.1 of 2025 in WA No.42 of 2025
WA No.42 of 2025
Sri Sourav Chakraborty
S/o: Lt. Sri Sikesh Chakraborty, of Ramnagar Road No.10, Agartala, West
Tripura
---Applicant/Appellant(s)
Versus
1. The State of Tripura
Represented by the Secretary, Govt. of Tripura,
School Education Department, New Capital Complex,
Agartala, West Tripura.
2) The Director
Directorate of Secondary Education (School)
Government of Tripura, Agartala, West Tripura.
3) The Tripura Board of Secondary Education
Represented by the Secretary, Office of P.N. Complex,
Gurkhabasti, Agartala, West Tripura, PIN-799006.
4) The Secretary, State Public Information Officer
Tripura Board of Secondary Education,
Office of P.N. Complex, Gurkhabasti, Agartala,
West Tripura, PIN-799006
---Respondent(s)
For the Applicant(s) : Mr. Saugat Datta, Advocate
For the Respondent(s) : Mr. Karnajit De, Addl. GA
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. APARESH KUMAR SINGH
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.D. PURKAYASTHA
ORDER
28.04.2025
The appeal suffers from a delay of 319 days for the condonation of
which IA No.1 of 2025 has been preferred.
Mr. Saugat Datta appears as a legal aid counsel for the appellant.
The writ petition was preferred by the petitioner seeking copies of his
answer sheet of Senior Secondary Exam conducted by the Tripura Board of
Secondary Education (TBSE) for the session 2022. According to the petitioner,
he ought not to have got 279 marks out of 500 in the exams as he had not
attempted 135 marks in the examination since he was not well during that
exam.
He filed an RTI application on 22.01.2024 to obtain copies of the
answer sheets, but he was only granted right to inspect the answer books.
Being aggrieved, he approached the writ court. The learned writ court
dismissed the writ petition on the ground of laches, as the petitioner had
approached the writ court after 2(two) years and there was no infringement of
any legal right. Being aggrieved, he has preferred the present appeal.
This issue has been dealt with in the case of CBSE and Anr. vs. Aditya
Bandopadhyay and Ors. reported in (2011) 8 SCC 497. The following issues
were framed for consideration in the appeal in the said case:
"The issues that arose in the present appeal were as follows:
(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 in Maharashtra State Board of
Secondary and Higher Secondary Education case, (1984) 4 SCC 27
and other cases referred to, 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 the 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?"
The Apex Court while answering the question number (iv) at paragraph
52 to 55 held as under:
"Re: Question (iv)
52. 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.
53. 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/co-ordinator/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 the 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 answer books 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/co-
ordinators/scrutinisers/head examiners, exempted from disclosure
under Section 8(1)(g) of the 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 the RTI Act.
54. The right to access information does not extend beyond the
period during which the examining body is expected to retain the
answer books. In the case of CBSE, the answer books are required
to be maintained for a period of three months and thereafter they
are liable to be disposed of/destroyed. Some other examining
bodies are required to keep the answer books for a period of six
months. The fact that right to information is available in regard to
answer books does not mean that answer books will have to be
maintained for any longer period than required under the rules and
regulations of the public authority. The obligation under the RTI
Act is to make available or give access to existing information or
information which is expected to be preserved or maintained.
55. If the rules and regulations governing the functioning of the
respective public authority require preservation of the information
for only a limited period, the applicant for information will be
entitled to such information only if he seeks the information when
it is available with the public authority. For example, with
reference to answer books, if an examinee makes an application to
CBSE for inspection or grant of certified copies beyond three
months (or six months or such other period prescribed for
preservation of the records in regard to other examining bodies)
from the date of declaration of results, the application could be
rejected on the ground that such information is not available. The
power of the Information Commission under Section 19(8) of the
RTI Act to require a public authority to take any such steps as may
be necessary to secure compliance with the provision of the Act,
does not include a power to direct the public authority to preserve
the information, for any period larger than what is provided under
the rules and regulations of the public authority."
The Apex Court at Para 67 has also observed that indiscriminate and
impractical demands or directions under RTI for disclosure of all and sundry
information (unrelated to transparency and accountability in the functioning of
public authorities and eradication of corruption) would be counterproductive
as it will adversely affect the efficiency of the administration and result in the
executive getting bogged down with the non-productive work of getting
collecting and furnishing information. The Act should not be allowed to be
misused or abused, to become and tool to obstruct the national development
and integration, or to destroy the peace, tranquility and harmony among its
citizens.
The Apex Court has recorded the conclusion in the following manner:
"Conclusion
68. In view of the foregoing, the order of the High Court
directing the examining bodies to permit examinees to have
inspection of their answer books is affirmed, subject to the
clarifications regarding the scope of the RTI Act and the
safeguards and conditions subject to which "information" should
be furnished. The appeals are disposed of accordingly."
In the present case, such information has been sought for after more
than two years of the examination. Therefore, the learned writ court found it to
be suffering from laches and refused to allow the prayer.
In the light of above discussion, we do not find any reason to interfere
in the impugned Judgment. Accordingly, the appeal stands dismissed.
Pending application shall also stand disposed.
(S.D. PURKAYASTHA), J (APARESH KUMAR SINGH), CJ
Rohit
SATABD by SATABDI
DUTTA
I DUTTA Date: 2025.04.30
11:08:27 +05'30'
