PolityGovernance
News 20 of 27

Allahabad HC Rules Exam Marks Not Private Under RTI Act, 2005, Limits Answer Sheet Access

PolityHIGH
Target:UPSC GS-IIMPSCSSC GATeachingPrelims HighMains MediumStatic GK Link
11 Mar 2026
~2 min
Source: Indian Express
Key Data:Judgment Date: February 26, 2026
Bodies:Allahabad High CourtCentral Information CommissionRailways
Practice MCQs from today's news ▸
What This Article Covers

1.Allahabad HC ruled that marks obtained in public examinations are not confidential private information under the RTI Act, 2005.

2.The Court quashed CIC's direction to supply photocopies of other candidates' answer sheets, citing protection of examiner details.

3.The ruling clarifies Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, differentiating between disclosing marks (allowed) and answer sheet copies (restricted).

The Big Picture
Prelims · HighMains · Medium

The Allahabad High Court clarified a key RTI provision, ruling that marks in public exams are not 'private information', thus allowing disclosure to co-candidates. However, it reversed a CIC order for providing photocopies of other candidates' answer sheets, protecting examiner details. This judgment balances transparency with privacy in competitive exams.

Exam Lens

Quick Exam Facts From News

CourtAllahabad High Court
JudgesJustices Ajit Kumar & Swarupama Chaturvedi
Judgment DateFebruary 26, 2026
Key ActRight to Information (RTI) Act, 2005

1-Minute Revision

  • ›Court: Allahabad High Court
  • ›Judges: Justices Ajit Kumar & Swarupama Chaturvedi
  • ›Target this Data: Judgment date - February 26, 2026.
  • ›Target this Nodal Body: Central Information Commission (CIC).
  • ›Target this Legal Point: Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005.

Mastered this topic? Test your knowledge with a full MCQ quiz.

Practice exam-style questions, track your score, and strengthen your recall.

Q1Static LinkageEasy

Which statutory body's order was partially quashed by the Allahabad High Court in the recent RTI case?

Q2Statement-basedHard

Consider the following statements regarding the recent Allahabad High Court judgment on RTI and exam information:

1. The Court ruled that marks obtained in a public examination are confidential private information.

2. The Court upheld the Central Information Commission's direction to provide photocopies of other candidates' answer sheets.

3. The Court held that a candidate has no vested right to obtain photocopies of another candidate's answer sheet.

Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

Q3Data-centricMedium

On which date did the Allahabad High Court bench of Justices Ajit Kumar and Swarupama Chaturvedi pass the judgment in the RTI case concerning exam marks?

Q4Application/ImpactMedium

What was the primary reason cited by the Allahabad High Court for not allowing photocopies of other candidates' answer sheets under RTI?

All 25 MCQs ▸
You finished this topic
Explore Related Topics
Related Current Affairs
Polity Current Affairs

Allahabad HC Rules CCTV Footage Exempt Under RTI Section 8(1)(g), Cannot Be Provided Directly

The Allahabad High Court has ruled that CCTV footage cannot be directly provided to an applicant under the RTI Act as it is exempt under Section 8(1)(g). However, a court or commission can direct preservation and production of such footage after a complaint is filed. This clarifies the scope of RTI exemptions and the procedure for accessing sensitive information.

Polity Current Affairs

SC Revises Interim Stay, Preserves Allahabad HC Quashing of NSA Detention Under Article 21

The Supreme Court revised its September 23 interim order, restricting the stay to only certain strictures and costs against the Noida DM, thereby preserving the Allahabad High Court's landmark quashing of a DU student's NSA detention. The case also raises serious questions about the SC's roster system and 'out-of-turn' listing, making it a critical study point for judicial review, preventive detention safeguards, and constitutional procedures.

Polity Current Affairs

Allahabad HC: Public Employment is Public Trust; Unlawful Appointments Under Articles 14 & 16 Cannot Be Protected

The Allahabad High Court has ruled that public employment is a public trust, and appointments secured through deceit, misrepresentation, or abuse of judicial process cannot be protected. The court upheld the termination of a teacher whose appointment was found unlawful, and ordered recovery of salary and benefits received under interim court protection, reinforcing the constitutional mandate of equality under Articles 14 and 16.

Polity Current Affairs

Allahabad HC Quashes Class-B History Sheet, Holds Rubber-Stamped Approval Violates Articles 19, 21

The Allahabad High Court quashed a Class-B history sheet against a man, ruling that police surveillance without sufficient evidence of professional criminality violates fundamental rights under Articles 19 and 21. This judgment reinforces procedural safeguards in police regulations and is crucial for mains answers on fundamental rights, police powers, and judicial review.

Polity Current Affairs

Allahabad HC Quashes NSA Detention for Procedural Lapses under BNSS Section 126, Awards ₹5,000 Compensation

The Allahabad High Court quashed the NSA detention of Aakriti Chaudhary, a DU graduate, holding that the state concocted the story and violated procedural safeguards under BNSS Section 126. This reinforces judicial scrutiny of preventive detention laws and the importance of habeas corpus petitions.

Polity Current Affairs

Allahabad HC Upholds Mandatory Govt Service Bond for Subsidised PG Medical Education

The Allahabad High Court has ruled that doctors who pursue subsidised PG medical education cannot evade the mandatory two-year government service bond, even if there is administrative delay in providing posting. The court held that the bond ensures availability of doctors in government hospitals and protects patients' right to life under Article 21.

Polity Current Affairs

SC Stays HC Order Declaring NSEI as 'Public Authority' Under RTI Act Section 2(h)

The Supreme Court has stayed a Delhi High Court order that declared the National Stock Exchange of India (NSEI) a 'public authority' under Section 2(h) of the RTI Act. This means citizens cannot currently enforce their right to information from NSEI. The case challenges whether a stock exchange, though controlled by the government, should be treated as a public authority.

Polity Current Affairs

Allahabad High Court: Govt Cannot Force Sale Deeds for Land Acquisition; Must Use LARR Act 2013

The Allahabad High Court has ruled that the government cannot force private landowners to sell their land through sale deeds if they are unwilling. If consent is not obtained, the government must follow the compulsory acquisition process under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. This distinction between voluntary sale and compulsory acquisition is crucial for land rights and government infrastructure projects.