RTI exemptions for exam instructions and moderation records depend on confidentiality, copyright scope, and existing records.

Examination instructions, solutions and evaluation material may be treated as protected intellectual property and confidential fiduciary information under the RTI Act, but the exemptions are not absolute. Disclosure under section 8(1)(d) depends on whether release would prejudice competitive interests, so post-examination disclosure may no longer be barred on that ground. Section 9 does not justify refusal where the material is owned by the examining body and disclosure does not amount to copyright infringement in substance. The body must disclose any standard moderation criteria maintained under Regulation 39(2), but it is not required to create or supply information not already existing in its records.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the instructions and solutions supplied by the examining body to examiners and moderators were exempt from disclosure as intellectual property under section 8(1)(d) of the Right to Information Act, 2005; (ii) whether furnishing such material would amount to infringement of copyright so as to attract section 9 of the Right to Information Act, 2005; (iii) whether the same material was held in a fiduciary relationship so as to attract section 8(1)(e) of the Right to Information Act, 2005; and (iv) whether the examining body was bound to disclose the information sought regarding revision of marks under Regulation 39(2) of the Chartered Accountants Regulations, 1988.

Issue (i): Whether the instructions and solutions supplied by the examining body to examiners and moderators were exempt from disclosure as intellectual property under section 8(1)(d) of the Right to Information Act, 2005.

Analysis: Question papers, solutions and evaluation instructions were treated as literary works embodying intellectual property. The exemption under section 8(1)(d) was held to depend not merely on the existence of intellectual property, but also on whether disclosure would harm the competitive position of third parties. Before an examination, disclosure would plainly prejudice examinees and therefore remain protected. After the examination and completion of evaluation, however, disclosure would no longer harm any competitive position, and the exemption would not continue indefinitely. The Court therefore rejected the contention that once exempt, the material remained exempt for all time.

Conclusion: The material was not permanently exempt under section 8(1)(d); after the examination and evaluation process, disclosure could not be denied on that ground.

Issue (ii): Whether furnishing such material would amount to infringement of copyright so as to attract section 9 of the Right to Information Act, 2005.

Analysis: Section 9 applies only where disclosure would infringe a copyright subsisting in a person other than the State. The examining body itself claimed copyright in the material, and any third-party authors had assigned their rights to it. The Court also noted that disclosure in response to an information request did not, in substance, amount to copyright infringement within the meaning of the Copyright Act, 1957.

Conclusion: Section 9 did not justify refusal of disclosure.

Issue (iii): Whether the same material was held in a fiduciary relationship so as to attract section 8(1)(e) of the Right to Information Act, 2005.

Analysis: The examiners and moderators received the instructions and solutions in confidence for the limited purpose of evaluating answer scripts uniformly and accurately. The relationship was treated as one of trust and confidentiality akin to principal and agent. The Court held that information given and taken in confidence and expected to be kept secret can fall within fiduciary relationship, and that the exemption is conditional, subject to disclosure if larger public interest so requires. No larger public interest was shown for disclosure of the confidential instructional material.

Conclusion: The instructions and solutions were exempt under section 8(1)(e), and disclosure was rightly refused.

Issue (iv): Whether the examining body was bound to disclose the information sought regarding revision of marks under Regulation 39(2) of the Chartered Accountants Regulations, 1988.

Analysis: Regulation 39(2) authorises moderation or revision of marks to maintain standards of pass percentage. The examining body was required to disclose the standard criteria, if any, adopted for moderation because such policy reflects the manner in which discretion is structured. But it was not obliged to compile or furnish data that was not maintained in its records, as the Right to Information Act reaches only existing information. The authority deciding the exercise of discretion had already been identified as the Examination Committee, but the specific data sought in parts of the query could be denied where not available.

Conclusion: The authority had to disclose the standard criteria for moderation, if maintained, but was not bound to furnish non-existent or unmaintained data.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded in part. The refusal to disclose the examination instructions and solutions was sustained on fiduciary/confidentiality grounds, while limited disclosure was required regarding the moderation criteria under Regulation 39(2).

Ratio Decidendi: Information supplied by an examining body to its examiners in confidence may be withheld under the RTI Act only so long as its disclosure would prejudice competitive interests or fall within a protected fiduciary relationship, but the Act does not require disclosure of information that is not maintained in existing records.

---