Court directs university to review policies on disclosing exam materials under RTI Act, emphasizing transparency and right to information.

The court found in favor of the appellant, directing the respondent university to review its policies on disclosing question papers, answer keys, and OMR answer sheets under the RTI Act. The court emphasized transparency and the right to information, instructing the university to reconsider its stance within three months. Despite no personal relief granted to the appellant, the court highlighted the importance of aligning policies with the objectives of the RTI Act to ensure transparency and accountability.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the rule of not allowing students to take away the question paper from the examination hall.
2. Validity of the refusal to supply a copy of the question paper under the RTI Act after the examination results have been declared.
3. Validity of the refusal to supply copies of the OMR answer sheets and answer key under the RTI Act after the examination results have been declared, though permitting inspection thereof.

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Validity of the rule of not allowing students to take away the question paper from the examination hall.
The court examined the respondent university's policy of not allowing examinees to take away question papers from the examination hall. The respondent argued that the number of multiple-choice questions (MCQs) is limited and repeating questions in subsequent years would compromise the examination's efficacy. The court noted that this concern was addressed in the judgment of *Shaunak H. Satya*, which held that question papers might not be disclosable before the examination but should be after the exam is held. The court found the respondent's reasoning unconvincing, particularly since other universities conducting similar examinations do not follow such restrictive policies. The court also highlighted that the stock of questions for the MBBS entrance examination cannot be as limited as claimed, given the broad curriculum and the existence of model question papers and coaching classes.

Issue 2: Validity of the refusal to supply a copy of the question paper under the RTI Act after the examination results have been declared.
The court held that the refusal to supply a copy of the question paper under the RTI Act, even after the results have been declared, is not justified. The respondent's argument that disclosing question papers would prejudice future examinations was not supported by sufficient evidence. The court emphasized that transparency and the right to information are paramount, as upheld in several judgments, including *Union Public Service Commission v. Angesh Kumar* and *Central Board of Secondary Education v. Aditya Bandopadhyay*. The court directed the respondent university to reconsider its policy in light of these observations.

Issue 3: Validity of the refusal to supply copies of the OMR answer sheets and answer key under the RTI Act after the examination results have been declared, though permitting inspection thereof.
The court found that the respondent's refusal to provide copies of the OMR answer sheets and answer key, while allowing inspection, was not tenable. The RTI Act mandates providing information in the form requested unless it disproportionately diverts resources or harms the safety or preservation of the records. The court noted that the respondent's refusal was based on the potential disclosure of the question paper, which is not a valid ground under the RTI Act. The court reiterated that the purpose of the RTI Act is to ensure transparency and accountability, and the respondent's policy must align with this objective.

Conclusion:
The court directed the respondent university to review its policies regarding the disclosure of question papers, answer keys, and OMR answer sheets in light of the observations made in the judgment. The court emphasized the importance of transparency and the right to information, instructing the university to take a decision within three months. No personal relief was granted to the appellant, as no errors were found during the inspection of the OMR answer sheets and answer key.

---