Translate:

Differences

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

--- important-decisions:cbse-and-anr-vs-aditya-bandopadhyay [2017/12/23 11:58] – created Shrawan
+++ important-decisions:cbse-and-anr-vs-aditya-bandopadhyay [2026/04/19 07:40] (current) – external edit 127.0.0.1
@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 ====== Supreme Court- CBSE and Anr. Vs Aditya Bandopadhyay ======
+<WRAP center round info 95%>
+**In plain English**
+A student sought certified copies of his own evaluated examination answer sheets from the Central Board of Secondary Education. The CBSE refused, arguing that it held the answer sheets in a fiduciary capacity under Section 8(1)(e) of the Right to Information Act and could not disclose them.
+The Supreme Court disagreed. The Court held that an evaluated answer sheet is "information" under Section 2(f) of the Act and is held by the Board in its own right, not in a fiduciary capacity. An examining body does not stand in a fiduciary relationship with a candidate in the narrow sense of Section 8(1)(e). The candidate is entitled to a certified copy, subject to the standard fee and cost rules.
+**What it means for you.** A candidate can use the Right to Information Act to obtain copies of his or her own evaluated answer scripts from most examining bodies: school boards, universities, and recruitment commissions. The fiduciary objection at Section 8(1)(e) does not ordinarily apply to the examiner-candidate relationship.
+**Current status.** The holding on the scope of "information" under Section 2(f) and on Section 8(1)(e) remains good law. The proviso to Section 8(1)(j) discussed in the case was removed by Section 44(3) of the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023, in force from 14 November 2025. See [[blog:dpdp-rules-2025-amendment-to-rti-act|DPDP Rules, 2025]].
+</WRAP>
  Reportable
 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
@@ Line 503: / Line 516: @@
 ……………………….J
 [A. K. Patnaik]
+----
+===== Status as of 19 April 2026 =====
+Remains good law on the scope of "information" under Section 2(f) and on the limitations in Sections 3, 7, 8, 9, and 11.
+The portion of the reasoning that depends on the public interest override within the proviso to Section 8(1)(j) must now be read against the amendment effected by Section 44(3) of the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023, which came into force on notification of the Digital Personal Data Protection Rules, 2025 on 14 November 2025. The override has been removed from clause (j). Public interest reasoning under the RTI Act now operates through Section 8(2). See [[blog:dpdp-rules-2025-amendment-to-rti-act|DPDP Rules, 2025: The amendment to Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act]].
+===== Sections engaged =====
+  * Section 2(f). Definition of "information".
+  * Section 2(j). Definition of "right to information".
+  * Section 3. Right to information.
+  * Section 7. Disposal of request.
+  * Section 8(1)(j). Exemption for personal information (as amended).
+  * Section 9. Infringement of copyright.
+  * Section 11. Third-party procedure.
+===== Citation =====
+Central Board of Secondary Education and Anr. v. Aditya Bandopadhyay and Ors., (2011) 8 SCC 497. Decided on 9 August 2011 by the Supreme Court of India. Bench: R. V. Raveendran and A. K. Patnaik, JJ.
+===== Sources =====
+  - Supreme Court of India, judgment in Civil Appeal No. 6454 of 2011, dated 9 August 2011.
+  - The Right to Information Act, 2005.
+  - The Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023, Section 44(3).
+===== Last reviewed on =====
+April 2026
+===== Related =====
+  * [[blog:pio-reply-section-8-1-j-after-dpdp-2025|Section 8(1)(j) after the Digital Personal Data Protection Rules, 2025: the PIO's reply, the file noting, and the practice]].
+  * [[important-decisions:cic-case-laws|Commission Decisions]].
+  * [[important-decisions:court:irrelevant-information|RTI can’t be Denied on the Ground that Information sought is Irrelevant]].
+  * [[important-decisions:cic-case-laws:advocates-rti|Appearance of Advocate /Non Advocate in the hearing]].
+  * [[important-decisions:court:right-to-information-applications-for-gujarat-high-court-pleadings-cannot-be-filed-by-a-third-party|Right to Information applications for Gujarat High Court pleadings cannot be filed by a third party.]].
+{{tag>rti case-law supreme-court section-2f section-8-1-j dpdp-2025}}

Was this page helpful?