The High Court of Telangana has affirmed that the Right to Information Act, 2005, supersedes institutional regulations prohibiting students from inspecting or obtaining certified copies of their evaluated answer scripts. This ruling reinforces the constitutional right to transparency in academic evaluation, particularly in high-stakes professional examinations like MBBS.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, an MBBS first-year student at RVM Medical College, secured 78 marks in the Human Anatomy theory paper out of 100, falling two marks short of the passing aggregate. Despite performing well in practicals and other subjects, he was declared failed. He suspected evaluation errors and sought revaluation and personal verification of his answer script.
Procedural History
The petitioner’s request was denied by Kaloji Narayana Rao University of Health Sciences on the grounds that its regulations permitted only recounting of marks, not revaluation or inspection of answer scripts. He filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, invoking Articles 14, 19, and 21, and also invoked Section 151 of the CPC for interim relief.
The Parties' Positions
- The petitioner argued that the denial violated his right to information under the RTI Act and principles of natural justice.
- The respondents contended that university bye-laws explicitly barred revaluation and personal verification, and that such procedures were not mandated by law.
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus directing the university to permit revaluation of his answer script and allow personal inspection and certified copying of his evaluated answer book.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether Section 22 of the Right to Information Act, 2005, overrides institutional rules prohibiting students from inspecting or obtaining certified copies of their evaluated answer scripts in professional examinations.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner relied on the Supreme Court’s judgment in Central Board of Secondary Education v. Aditya Bandopadhyay, which held that answer scripts qualify as "information" under the RTI Act. He argued that Section 22 of the RTI Act, which states that its provisions prevail over inconsistent laws, renders university rules prohibiting inspection void. He further cited a prior order of this Court in W.P. No. 1225 of 2026, which had granted identical relief on the same legal basis.
For the Respondent
The respondents contended that the university’s examination regulations, framed under its statutory authority, were binding and that allowing inspection could compromise evaluation integrity. They argued that recounting was the only remedy provided under the rules and that the RTI Act was not intended to interfere with academic autonomy.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the Supreme Court’s reasoning in Central Board of Secondary Education v. Aditya Bandopadhyay, particularly Paragraph 18, which unequivocally held that answer scripts are "information" under the RTI Act. The Court emphasized that Section 22 of the RTI Act operates as a non-obstante clause, rendering any conflicting institutional rules ineffective.
"What arises for consideration is the question whether the examinee is entitled to inspect his evaluated answer books or take certified copies thereof. This right is claimed by the students, not with reference to the rules or bye-laws of examining bodies, but under the RTI Act which enables them and entitles them to have access to the answer books as 'information' and inspect them and take certified copies thereof."
The Court noted that the respondents failed to demonstrate that the answer script fell under any exemption under Section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act, which permits withholding information if it would breach confidentiality or impede fair evaluation. No such risk was established here.
The Court further held that the prior judgment in W.P. No. 1225 of 2026 was directly on point and binding in principle. The respondents did not dispute the applicability of that precedent. The Court concluded that denying access to answer scripts, absent a valid statutory exemption, violates the statutory right conferred by the RTI Act and undermines the constitutional guarantee of transparency under Article 21.
The Verdict
The petitioner succeeded. The Court held that the RTI Act overrides university rules prohibiting inspection of answer scripts, and directed the university to permit the petitioner to verify his answer sheet upon payment of requisite fees, in accordance with the precedent set in W.P. No. 1225 of 2026. No costs were awarded.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Right to Information Prevails Over Institutional Rules
- Practitioners must now argue that any denial of answer script inspection by educational institutions is invalid unless the institution proves the document falls under Section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act.
- Institutions cannot rely on internal regulations to deny access when the RTI Act provides a statutory right.
Revaluation Requests Must Be Treated as RTI Applications
- Students seeking revaluation or verification should explicitly frame their requests under the RTI Act, not merely as internal appeals.
- Institutions must respond within 30 days under the RTI Act’s timeline, and failure to do so attracts penalties under Section 20.
Judicial Precedent Is Binding Across States
- The Telangana High Court’s reliance on Central Board of Secondary Education v. Aditya Bandopadhyay confirms that this principle applies uniformly across all examining bodies in India, including medical universities.
- Lawyers representing students in professional courses (MBBS, Engineering, Law) should cite this judgment to challenge blanket bans on answer script access.
