Transparency, Accountability & RTI
GS Paper: GS Paper II | Subject: Governance | Last updated: 2026-06-04
Prelims
(Key facts, data, schemes, laws, organizations — MCQ-ready points)
CIC Directs CBSE to Disclose Exam-Procurement Data (The Hindu, 15-06-2026)
- The Central Information Commission (CIC) set aside CBSE's denial and directed it to provide "point-wise categorical" RTI replies on expenditure on exams and the tendering/procurement of answer books (paper quality, pages, size, purchase cost, total spend, GST, tender process) for Class 10 & 12 (2023-24 & 2024-25)
- CBSE had refused under Section 8(1)(e) (fiduciary relationship) "without giving any proper justification"
- CIC = apex appellate authority under the RTI Act, 2005; Section 8 lists exemptions (often over-invoked); CPIO = Central Public Information Officer
Mains
(Analysis, dimensions, significance, critique, policy angles — for 10/15 mark answers)
RTI Exemptions vs Public Accountability (The Hindu, 15-06-2026)
- Over-use of Section 8 exemptions (here 8(1)(e) "fiduciary") to shield routine procurement data shows how blanket denial hollows out the RTI Act; the CIC's "point-wise" direction reasserts that an exemption must be specifically justified, not presumed
- Public-money expenditure on exam procurement is squarely a matter of public interest (Section 8's proviso) — opacity here also fuels suspicion amid the wider exam-integrity / paper-leak crisis
- UPSC angle: RTI Act 2005, Section 8 exemptions & public-interest override, CIC powers, transparency of public bodies, fiduciary-relationship plea