translated from Hindi

CIC Directs CBSE to Disclose Information on Tender Process for Board Exam Answer Sheets Under RTI

The Central Information Commission held that CBSE could not deny details of answer-sheet procurement and tendering under blanket exemptions without justification, especially where public-interest concerns over irregularities had been raised.

सूचना आयोग ने सीबीएसई को 10वीं-12वीं बोर्ड परीक्षाओं की टेंडर प्रक्रिया से जुड़ी जानकारी तलब की

The Wire Hindi · By द वायर स्टाफ · 15 June 2026 · read the original in Hindi →

New Delhi: The Central Information Commission (CIC) has directed the Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) to provide, under the RTI Act, information related to the tender process for the Class 10 and 12 board examinations.

Setting aside the board’s earlier response refusing disclosure, the commission asked it to provide the information “point by point.”

The RTI application had sought information related to the answer booklets used in the 2023-24 and 2024-25 board examinations. This included the specifications of the answer booklets, their procurement cost, total expenditure on the purchase, GST payments, and details of the tender process.

In its initial reply, CBSE had refused to disclose the cost of the answer booklets, the number purchased, and the total expenditure incurred on their procurement. Citing exemptions under Sections 8(1)(d), 8(1)(e), and 8(1)(g) of the RTI Act, the board had also declined to provide information related to the tender process, such as the companies that participated, the rates quoted by them, and the procedure by which the vendor was selected.

In its reply, the board had stated only that the answer booklets were printed on paper ranging from 60 GSM to 120 GSM, contained between 8 and 48 pages, and were available in two sizes. The board had also said that no record was maintained of the weight of each answer booklet.

According to the news agency PTI, the board had also refused to provide information related to examination fees.

It said this data was maintained on the basis of the financial year and that it could not provide specific details of expenditure. The board had also said that expenditure on practical examinations was recorded under a broad expenditure head and therefore could not be stated separately.

Challenging this response, the applicant approached the CIC and argued that the procurement process and the expenses associated with it should be disclosed in the public interest.

The CIC held that the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) had invoked exemption clauses to deny the information “without giving any proper reason.” The commission said, “As no justification of any kind has been furnished for not providing the information sought, the impugned reply given by the CPIO on March 18, 2025, is set aside.”

The commission also noted that the CPIO neither appeared at the hearing nor submitted any written response in support of his decision.

Expressing disappointment at the board’s approach, the CIC said the CPIO ought to have provided the remaining relevant information after removing or redacting those portions that are exempt from disclosure under the RTI Act.

Under Section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act, information such as commercial confidence, trade secrets, or intellectual property may be denied if its disclosure would affect the competitive position of a third party.

However, if the competent authority is satisfied that disclosure of such information is necessary in the larger public interest, it may be made public.

In its order, the CIC said, “In view of the allegations of irregularities in such tenders made by the appellant during the hearing, the commission deems it appropriate that the CPIO re-examine the contents of the RTI application concerned and provide a revised, point-wise reply, along with the relevant information that can be furnished in accordance with the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005.”

According to the report, the commission also underscored that the Supreme Court and the commission itself have repeatedly said that exemption clauses should be used sparingly in order to ensure accountability in public procurement and government contracts.