Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
+{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(§7(8), §2(f), answer-sheets, CBSE, aditya bandopadhyay)
+metatag-description=(Answer-sheets are 'information'; specific clause + reasons mandatory.)
+metatag-title=(CBSE v. Aditya Bandopadhyay — 2011 — RTI case law)}}
+====== CBSE v. Aditya Bandopadhyay ======
+**CBSE v. Aditya Bandopadhyay** (Supreme Court of India, 2011-08-09) //(2011) 8 SCC 497// is a ruling on the Right to Information Act, 2005 — Sections 2(f), 8(1)(e), 7(8), 6. Answer-sheets are 'information'; specific clause + reasons mandatory. Evaluated answer-sheets fall within the definition of information under §2(f).
+===== Holding =====
+Answer-sheets are 'information'; specific clause + reasons mandatory.
+===== Ratio =====
+Evaluated answer-sheets fall within the definition of information under §2(f). The CBSE holds them in fiduciary capacity for the candidate, but disclosure to the candidate himself does not breach the fiduciary trust. The PIO must always cite a specific exemption sub-clause and provide reasons under §7(8).
+===== Section(s) applied =====
+  * Section 2(f)
+  * Section 8(1)(e)
+  * Section 7(8)
+  * Section 6
+===== Practitioner takeaway =====
+Specific clause + reasons under §7(8); fiduciary defence to applicant's own record rejected.
+===== Citation =====
+  * **Citation:** (2011) 8 SCC 497
+  * **Court:** Supreme Court of India
+  * **Date:** 2011-08-09
+  * **Outcome:** allowed
+  * **Reporter / Cause-list:** (2011) 8 SCC 497
+===== Related =====
+  * [[:cases:search|RTI Case-Law Search — full corpus]]
+  * [[:pio-faa-knowledge-base|PIO/FAA Knowledge Base]]
+  * [[:pio-supreme-court-rulings|10 landmark Supreme Court RTI rulings]]
+  * [[:pio-high-court-rulings|High Court RTI rulings]]
+  * [[:landmark-cic-decisions|Landmark CIC decisions]]
+  * [[:act|RTI Act, 2005 — full text]]
+//Last reviewed: 23 April 2026.// {{tag>rti case-law cases sc 2011}}

Was this helpful? — views