CIC Directs CBSE to Disclose Answer Booklet Procurement Tender Details in RTI Case
The Central Information Commission (CIC) has taken a firm stance in a recent Right to Information (RTI) matter, instructing the Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) to publicly disclose comprehensive details regarding the procurement of answer booklets used in board examinations. The order covers the tender process, associated costs, and other related financial information.
Scope of the RTI Application
The case originated from an RTI application seeking detailed information about answer booklets utilized in the 2023-24 and 2024-25 CBSE board examinations. The applicant requested specifics on the quality of answer books, including page counts, dimensions, purchase costs, total expenditure, GST payments, and a complete overview of the tender process adopted for acquiring these materials.
CBSE’s Initial Response
In its initial reply, CBSE provided partial information, confirming that the paper quality of answer booklets ranged between 60 GSM and 120 GSM. The board also disclosed that the booklets contained either 8, 20, 32, 40, or 48 pages, with sizes measuring 22×28 cm and 37.5×54.5 cm. However, CBSE stated that no records were available regarding the weight of the answer booklets.
Notably, the board declined to reveal the procurement cost, the total quantity of booklets purchased, or the overall expenditure incurred, citing Section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act as the basis for withholding this information.
Grounds for Refusal and Subsequent Challenge
CBSE further refused to share details about the tender process, participating companies, their quoted rates, and the vendor selection methodology, describing these as confidential and sensitive matters related to examinations. The board additionally argued that examination expenses are recorded on a financial year basis, making it impossible to provide the specific information requested.
The appellant challenged this decision before the CIC, arguing that transparency and public interest necessitated the disclosure of such information. During the hearing, Information Commissioner Sudha Rani Relangi observed that the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) had failed to provide adequate justification for withholding the information. The Commission also noted that the CPIO neither appeared for the hearing nor submitted any written response supporting the refusal.
Key Directives from the Commission
The CIC delivered several important directives in its ruling:
- The Commission annulled the CPIO’s response dated March 18, 2025, citing the absence of any substantive reason for denying the requested information.
- Emphasis was placed on maintaining transparency in government procurement and tender processes.
- The CPIO was instructed to revisit the RTI application and furnish a point-by-point, clearly articulated response.
- All information eligible for disclosure under the RTI framework must be made available to the applicant.
- For any information that cannot be disclosed, the Commission permitted severance under Section 10 of the RTI Act, allowing the remaining information to be shared after redaction.
- If any information is withheld under Section 8(1)(d), the concerned authority must provide clear and legally valid reasons for such refusal.
Understanding Section 8(1)(d)
Section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act pertains to information involving commercial confidence, trade secrets, and intellectual property. The Commission clarified that such information can only be withheld if its disclosure would harm the competitive position of a third party. However, the CIC also noted that even this type of information may be disclosed when there is a larger public interest at stake.
Observations on CPIO’s Conduct
A significant aspect of the Commission’s ruling was its criticism of the CPIO’s handling of the matter. The CIC observed that the CPIO failed to appear during the hearing proceedings and did not submit any written explanation to justify the refusal of information. This lack of engagement was noted as a contributing factor in the Commission’s decision to overturn the earlier response.
The ruling reinforces the principle that public authorities must provide substantive reasoning when denying information under the RTI Act. It also underscores the importance of accountability in public procurement processes, particularly for organizations like CBSE that handle large-scale operations involving significant public funds.
The CIC’s order serves as a reminder that transparency in examination-related procurement is essential for maintaining public trust in the education system. By mandating the disclosure of tender details and expenditure related to answer booklets, the Commission has set a precedent for greater openness in the administrative functions of educational boards.
This decision is expected to have implications for how CBSE and similar institutions handle future RTI requests pertaining to procurement and financial matters. It reinforces the legal obligation of public authorities to provide comprehensive and well-reasoned responses to information requests, while also highlighting the importance of due process in administrative decision-making.
