The Central Information Commission (CIC) has directed the Delhi University (DU) Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) to justify why records on how the Faculty of Law evaluates semester exam answer scripts were withheld. [Rishabh Mishra v, The CPIO, University of Delhi]

Responding to the CPIO's argument that many of the appellant's queries were really seeking clarifications or opinions rather than facts, Information Commissioner Sudha Rani Relangi held that a CPIO cannot be compelled to answer for reasoning that isn't on record.

"The CPIO is not required to create information, give an opinion, interpret records, or furnish explanations which are not available on the record," the Commission said.

However, it clarified that existing records such as marking schemes, written instructions to examiners, notices, circulars and guidelines do constitute information under Section 2(f) of the Right to Information (RTI) Act, subject to exemptions under Section 8 or Section 9.

The CPIO had submitted that the evaluation process was confidential and held in a fiduciary capacity.

The Commission held that the mere description of information as 'confidential' does not, by itself, constitute a valid ground for denial under the RTI Act. It added that any denial must be traceable to a specific exemption under Section 8 or Section 9, and that the fiduciary exemption under Section 8(1)(e) cannot be invoked mechanically without the university establishing that relationship for the particular information sought.

The order came on a second appeal under the RTI Act filed by one Rishabh Mishra. His application sought the marking scheme, examiner training records, safeguards to keep evaluators from knowing students' identities, quality checks on the evaluation process and details of any digital evaluation used for the Faculty of Law's three-year LLB semester exams.

The CPIO forwarded the query to the Joint Registrar (Examinations) and told Mishra that a response from that office was still awaited. Dissatisfied, Mishra filed a first appeal. The First Appellate Authority directed the University to respond to him directly within two weeks. When the University did not comply, Mishra filed a second appeal with the CIC.

The Commission found that the CPIO had substantially complied with the First Appellate Authority's order but had not adequately linked the confidentiality claim to any specific exemption.

It directed the CPIO to file a signed statement identifying each withheld item, the exact provision relied upon and where Section 8(1)(e) is claimed, the fiduciary relationship involved. The CPIO must also say whether any non-exempt portions of the withheld records can be separated and disclosed, as allowed under Section 10 of the Act. It has two weeks to comply.

[Read Order]