1. LAB
END TERM PROJECT
Presented By:
Section 19 B
GROUP 5

2. FOCUS
 CWG
Scam
2 G Scam

3. "If we cannot make India corruption-
free, then the vision of making the
nation develop by 2020 would remain
as a dream."
- Dr. A.P.J.Abdul

4. PCA - INTRODUCTION
 Corruption– Greatest
impediments on the
way towards progress
for a developing
country
 Adversely affects the Economic, Social &
Cultural Structure
 PCA - Came into force on 9th September,
1988.

5. SECTION 2: DEFINITIONS
Public Duty
It means a duty that is done for the benefit of the
State, the public or the community at a large.
State would mean:
a) A corporation established by or under a
Central, Provincial or State Act.
b) An authority or a body owned controlled or aided by
the Government Company as defined in Sec. 617 of
the Companies Act, 1956.

6. Public Servant
a) Any person who is paid by the government or
local authority or remunerated by way of fees
or commission for the performance of or is in
the service
b) Any Judge or any person authorized by a
court of justice to perform any duty, in
connection with the administration of justice or
any arbitrator

7. CONTD...
c) Any person who holds an office
result to which he is empowered to
prepare, publish maintain or revise
an electoral roll or to conduct an
election or part of an election
d) Any person who is the president,
secretary or other office bearer of a
registered co-operative society
engaged in agriculture, industry,
trade or banking, receiving or
having received any financial aid
from the Central or State
Government or any authority or
body owned

8. CONTD…
e) Any person who is a chairman, member or employee of
any service commission or Board or a member of any
selection committee appointed by such Commission or
Board
f) Any person who is the Vice-Chancellor or member of
any governing body, professor, reader or lecturer of any
University and any person whose services have been
availed of by a University.
g) An office-bearer or an employee of an
educational, scientific, social, cultural or other institution
receiving or having received any financial assistance
from the Central or State government or local or other

9. SECTION 7-16 : OFFENCES & PENALTIES
 Sec 7: Public servant taking gratification other than
legal remuneration in respect of an official act
 Sec 8: Taking gratification, in order, by corrupt or
illegal means, to influence public servant
 Sec 9: Taking gratification, for exercise of personal
influence with public servant
 Sec 10: Punishment for abetment by public
servant of offences defined in section 8 or 9
• Imprisonment (6 months to 5 yrs)
• Liable for fine

10. CONTD…
 Sec 11: Public servant obtaining valuable
thing, without consideration from person concerned
in proceeding or business transacted by such public
servant
 Sec 12: Punishment for abetment of offences
defined in section 7 or 11
• Imprisonment (6 months to 5 yrs)
• Liable for fine
 Sec 13: Criminal misconduct by a public servant
• Imprisonment (1 to 7 yrs)
• Liable for fine

11. CONTD…
 Sec 14: Habitual committing of offence under
sections 8, 9 and 12
• Imprisonment (2 to 7 yrs)
• Liable for fine
 Sec 15: Punishment for attempt
• Imprisonment (Upto 3 yrs)
• Liable for fine
 Sec 16: Matters to be taken into consideration for
fixing fine

12. SECTIONS 17-31: INVESTIGATIONS
Sec 17: Persons Authorized to Investigate
Investigation shall be done by a police officer not
below the rank of:
a) In case of Delhi, of an Inspector of Police.
b) In metropolitan areas, of an Assistant Commissioner of
Police.
c) Elsewhere, of a Deputy Superintendent of Police or an
officer of equivalent rank shall investigate any offence
punishable
 If a police officer no below the rank of an Inspector of
Police is authorized by the State Government in this
behalf by general or special order, he may investigate
such offence without the order of a Metropolitan
Magistrate or Magistrate of First class or make arrest

13. COMMON WEALTH
GAMES SCAM

14. CWG BACKGROUND
 International, multi-sport event involving athletes from the
Commonwealth of Nations.
 A sporting competition bringing together the members of
the British Empire was first proposed in 1891
 First Games were held in 1930 in Canada.
 Name was changed from British empire games to British
Empire and Commonwealth Games in 1954, to British
Commonwealth Games in 1970 and assumed the
current name of the Commonwealth Games in 1978.

15. CONTD…
 The Games are overseen by the Commonwealth Games
Federation (CGF), which also controls the sporting
programme and selects the host cities.
 A host city is selected for each edition and eighteen cities
in seven countries have hosted the event.
 Although there are 54 members of the Commonwealth of
Nations, 71 teams participate in the Commonwealth
Games as a number of British overseas territories, Crown
dependencies, and island states compete under their
own flag.

16. XIX CWG – NEW DELHI
 The 2010 Commonwealth Games were the nineteenth Commonwealth
Games
 Held between 3 October and 14 October 2010.
 The largest multi-sport event conducted to date in Delhi and India
 The opening ceremony took place at the Jawaharlal Nehru Stadium in
Delhi.
 It was the first time that the Commonwealth Games were held in India
and the second time it was held in Asia after Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia in
1998.
 Official Mascot - Shera & Official Song - "Jiyo Utho Bado Jeeto",

17. HOW NEW DELHI GOT IT - BIDDING
 The two principal bids for the 2010 Commonwealth Games were
from Delhi, India and Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
 A ballot was held in November 2003 at the CWG Federation
General Assembly in Montego Bay, Jamaica.
 Delhi bid won by a margin of 46 votes to 22, confirming India's
first successful bid for the Games.
 India's bid motto was - “New Frontiers and Friendships”.
 India shifted the balance in its favor in the second round of voting
with a promise that it would provide US$100,000 to each
participating country, along with air tickets, boarding, lodging and
transport.
 The successful 2003 Afro-Asian Games in Hyderabad showed India
had the resources, infrastructure and technical know-how to stage a

18. KEY STAKEHOLDERS
i. Commonwealth Games Federation (CGF):
ii. Indian Olympic Association (IOA):
iii. Organising Committee (OC):
iv. Government of Delhi:
 Delhi Development Authority (DDA)
 Delhi Police
v. Government of India: It is committed to ensure
adequate funds for the conduct of the Games to
the OC.
 Ministry of Home Affairs
 Ministry of External Affairs
 Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports
 Ministry of Commerce and Industry
 Sports Authority of India

19. BUDGET
 The initial total budget estimated by the Indian Olympic
Association in 2003 for hosting the Games was 1,620
crore (US$328.54 million).
 In 2010, however, the official total budget soon escalated
to an estimated 11,500 crore (US$2.33 billion), a figure
which excluded non-sports-related infrastructure
development in the city like airports, roads and other
structures.
 This made the 2010 Commonwealth Games the most
expensive Commonwealth Games ever, being larger than
the previous games in Melbourne 2006.

20. BUSINESS TODAY MAGAZINE ESTIMATED THAT THE
GAMES COST 60,000 CRORE (US$12.17 BILLION).

21. COST
 That is 114 times more than the estimated original price
tag of the Games, and four times what the government
spends on the National Rural Health Mission every year.

22. Successful in Anger
India's dirt
digging holes amongst the
out in the
in the common people of
open
man’s pockets India
 Eight years ago when India won the bet, the official cost
estimate was Rs 1,800 crore. Now the official figure is Rs
10,000 crore while it is actually believed to be Rs 60,000
crore plus unofficially
generate
reductio cash for the
increase games &
n in
in taxes overcome
subsidies facing a cash
crunch
 Government officials claim that sponsorships will help
ensure record revenues, and at least recover the money
spent on the Games (excluding public infrastructure).

23. Sr.no Various Aspects Investment
1 Stadium facilities 4,429 crores
2 CWG Village 1,038 crores
3 Parking facilities 473 crores
4 Opening & Closing ceremony 800 crores
5 Beautification of Streets 344 crores
6 Rent for CWG HQ 175 crores
7 Metro expansions 16887 crores
8 Airport modernization 5400 crores
9 A power plant in Bawana 35000 crores
10 Hospitality expenses
1. Travel grant for all athletes 48 crores
2. Free accommodation CWG village & free trip 2225 crores
to Taj & luxury Buses & cars
11 Others
TOTAL 67,089 crores
Revenue Model
1. Sponsorship 450 crores
2. Broadcast rights 299.7 crores
3. Licensing 59.99 crores
4. Ticket sales 29.97 crores
893.66 crores
(Source: http://www.cpwdcommonwealth.in and www.cwgdelhi2010.org.)

25. GAMES FINISH, INVESTIGATION BEGINS
 The game proceeded safely with no glitches.
 India gave her best performance with 101 medals.
 Next day after the Games, the Indian government
formed a special investigation committee.

26. CIVIC BODIES PROBING THE SCAM
 A panel set up by the government to look into the
corruption charges. Headed by former Comptroller and
Auditor General, VK Shunglu, it has the mandate to
review every transaction
 The special panel appointed by the government will
probe the financial bungling and administrative lapses.
 The Comptroller and Auditor. General (CAG) is looking
into financial misappropriation
 Enforcement Directorate (ED) is probing the routing of
funds, which have been traced to tax havens like
Mauritius.

27. CONTD…
 The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) will be
examining tenders issued for various Games
related projects, which are already under scrutiny
after exposes on items being bought at absurdly
inflated rates.
 The Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) is looking
into allegations of corruption in all infrastructure
projects like the stadia and Games' venues.

29. ALLEGATIONS
1. It is estimated that the expenditure bills have been inflated by
30% of the actual value of services or commodities procured.
2. The Income Tax department is scrutinizing financial
documents relating to the broadcast rights for the CWG
following charges of tax evasion.
3. The Central Vigilance Commission is examining 11 major
project tenders which were awarded at artificially hiked rates
causing a loss of over Rs.500 crore.
4. The Enforcement Directorate is looking into a case of alleged
violation for foreign exchange regulations related to the Queen
Baton Relay in London.

30. CONTD…
5. Emaar-MGF is in the dock for alleged irregularities in the construction
of the CWG Village in Delhi. The Rs.183 crore bank guarantee
furnished by Commonwealth Games village builder Emaar-MGF was
ordered to be confiscated on charges of irregularities. A Rs. 760
crore bail out package given by Delhi Development Authority(DDA)
for Emaar-MGF also came under the scanner.
6. The CWG Organizing Committee head office being burglarized
several times to steal or destruct the data which is being probed.
7. CVC has initiated an inquiry into an alleged recruitment scam in the
Commonwealth Games Organizing Committee (OC) following
complaints that it showed ghost employees on its muster rolls and
violated norms while inducting people. A total of 2,100 people were
shown as having worked between May 2009 and November 2010 in
different capacities and together drew salary running into several
crores.

31. CONTD…
8. Kalmadi delayed catering contract in CWG which
inflated the budget by more than Rs 20 cr.
9. The CVC has found alleged financial and
administrative irregularities in over 30
Commonwealth Games projects in the national
capital and overlays deals by the Organizing
Committee for the mega-sporting event.
10. CBI registered the fourth FIR in connection with
the overlays contracts given out to four firms. The
total value of these contracts was over Rs 600
crore.

32. OVERLAY SCAM
Rs.3,750. Rs 9.75 lakh each
Rs 9,379
Rs 4 lakh
Big amount without any
account

33. CAG REPORT
 Kalmadi deliberately delayed CWG contracts.
 CWG D.G. colluded with vendors & awarded
favourable contracts.
 Collusion between OC officials and vendors.
 Vendors 'Colluded to form a cartel
 Corruption in Marketing

34. EXAMPLES
 Vendors: 'Though „Nusli‟ with annual turnover of Rs
418,27cr was eligible for bidding for maximum 3
clusters, but OC allowed them to bid for 7 at the
instance of VK Verma, Dir Gen. Reason for this has
not been recorded in any of the documents„.
 Marketing: OC's revenue generation targets were by
then far behind schedule and expenditure had
already gone up manifold, liability for which was
ultimately borne by GoI'.

35. LEGAL CASES REGISTERED (EXAMPLE)
 The CBI registered cases against six officials of
CWG Organising Committee and two private firms
for extending undue favours while appointing official
Master Licensee for merchandising and retailing
during the games.
 Firms involved were : Compact Disc India Limited
(CDIL) and its group arm Premier Branch Private
Limited (PBPL)

36. EXAMPLE CONTINUED
 PBPL submitted an offer of Rs 5.20 crore for
acquiring all the rights of master licensee for
merchandising.
 Two cheques amounting to Rs 3.5 crore but the
same were dishonoured by the bank and as such
the OC did not receive any amount from the private
company.
 Accusation that PBPL used CWG brand to earn
huge profits, but did not pay anything.

37. LEGAL CASES FILED BY EX- CWG
EMPLOYEES (EXAMPLE-1/14)
 Ex-treasurer M Jayachandran, who is lodged in
Tihar jail, has slapped a Rs five-crore defamation
suit in the Delhi High Court against the OC for
allegedly tarnishing his image. Jayachandran is an
accused in the Timing-Scoring- Result (TSR) scam
that has led to a loss of over Rs 95 crore to the
exchequer. The CBI has accused him of
manipulating the minutes of OC's Finance
Committee to justify the alleged forgery in the
award of TSR contract.

38. IMPACTS OF IRREGULARITIES
 Socio-Economic Status
 Organizational Failure
 Infrastructure Issues

39. SOCIO-ECONOMIC IMPACT
 Prominent experts called the games a „drain on
public funds‟.
 Nearly 40,000 people were displaced.
 Accusations of systematic violation of labor laws
at construction sites.
 CNN broadcast showed child labor at such sites.

40. ORGANIZATIONAL FAILURE
 CVC released a report showing irregularities in 14
CWG projects.
 Saw extremely poor ticket sales, with all venues
half-empty.
 The CWG projects were to be completed by the
end of 2009, which was not really the case.

41. INFRASTRUCTURE ISSUES
 On 21 September, 2010, a overhead bridge
collapsed put the entire event in jeopardy.
 4 out of 5 accommodation towers in the Games
village were unfinished.
 Dengue outbreak caused fear in the minds of
athletes.

42. THE MURKY DEAL….
 The lawn bowling tracks to be used during the
Games had been built at around Rs 1.36 crore when
it could had been done at just Rs 27 lakh.

43. BROKEN ROADS
 There were a number of teenagers between the ages
of 14 and 16 who worked at these places, obviously
lured by an adult salary.

44. DYNAMISM INVOLVED
From the perspective of purchasing process, the following
control issues are apparent:
 Improper and inadequate vendor selection and evaluation
procedures were followed.
 Conflict of interest was not disclosed while signing contracts
with related parties.
 Tenders were not given to bidders quoting lowest price of the
product.
 Vendors did not deliver the contracted quality and quantity
as per the delivery schedule.

45. DYNAMISM INVOLVED… CONTD
 Vendor payments were not linked to delivery of
products or completion of deliverables.
 There was no segregation of duties. The same
officials authorized the contract and approved
payments.
 Vendors were not penalized for sub-standard
quality or late delivery.

46. DYNAMISM INVOLVED… CONTD
 Purchase contracts signed with varying rates for the
same product;
 Prices over-inflated in some contracts;
 Contracts given to relatives and friends;
 Sub-standard products purchased;
 Vendor payments made without confirming quality and
delivery;
 Payments made to non-existent vendors.

47. DYNAMISM INVOLVED… CONTD
 An independent evaluation of contracts by risk
managers may have prevented misappropriation of
funds.
 A periodic audit by government agencies could
have highlighted these issues at an earlier stage
 Consultants Event Knowledge Services, Fast Track
Sales Ltd, Sports Marketing And Management
(SMAM) and AM Films are supposed to have
received undue benefits
 Legal Requirements to place report in parliament

48. CONSEQUENCES
 Bad publicity of the nation.
 Tarnished image in terms of hygiene.
 Loss of faith in the system
 Refusal of athletes to participate in games or
withdraw from games.
 The incomplete work added unnecessary cost
burdens

49. EFFECT ON BRAND INDIA
 Unique opportunity lost
 Take a look at our neighbors – Beijing Olympics
 Looting of pride of our nation; leaving us to shambles
 India‟s position degraded in global list of corruption
 India perceived as more corrupt after CWG scam – 87th out of
178 countries surveyed
 A marginal decline in India's integrity score to 3.3 in 2010 from
3.5 in 2007 and 3.4 in 2008 and 2009

50. SUGGESTIONS
 The contagious disease of scams demands perfect
healing and a thorough clean-up
 Implementation of The Santhanam Committee
recommendations

51.  While nobody will officially say this, we all know why
costs have bloated and stadiums are collapsing.
Officials and politicians make money on bribes from
contractors, who win bids at the “lowest” price and
then earn super profits by compromising on quality.
Then they make more money citing over-runs and
repairs. Material suppliers hoard construction
materials and make a killing as we desperately race
to the deadline.
 But nobody will be indicted or arrested or tried. That is
the way it works – too many important people are making
too much money.

52. 2G SCAM

53. 2G SPECTRUM
 122 telecom licenses with 2G spectrum awarded in
Jan‟08 at 2001 rates (Rs 1,685 crore) ignoring current
market value
 In Feb‟07, Hutch sold its 67% equity to Vodafone at
Rs 75,000 cr signalling substantial increase in
spectrum value
(Even if 15% of this is considered to be spectrum
value, then it is Rs 11,250 cr per pan-India license)
Raja ignores this price
 In Nov‟07, S-TEL offered Rs 6,000 cr for pan-India
license; in December 2007, it increased the offer to Rs
13,752 crore
This was also ignored by Raja

54.  Private companies sold their equities to foreign
telecom companies at very high prices
 Companies that had pan-India licenses was valued
at about Rs 10,000 cr
 Difference in these figures
 Rs 10,000 cr and Rs 1,659 cr
 is per pan-India license loss to the Government and
gain to private companies.

55.  - Shyam Telecom: Sold 74% to Sistema of Russia
(MTS brand)
 - Unitech: Sold 67% to Telenor of Norway (Uninor
brand)
 - Swan Telecom: Sold DB Group about 45% to
Etisalat, UAE (Cheers brand) and 5% to
Genex, Chennai
 - Tata Teleservice: Sold 26% to NTT of Japan
(DoCoMo brand)

56. ROLE OF THE FORMER TELECOM MINISTER A RAJA IN
THE SCAM
 Ensured that spectrum is allocated to certain companies
 First, Reliance Communication wanted entry into GSM
segment. The company applied for fresh license through
Swan, and also applied for dual-technology permission.
In October 2007, Mr Raja allowed dual technology. But it
appears that Reliance gave away the control of Swan to
DB Group (Shahid Balwa), who was close to Mr Raja.
The advantage with this company (Swan) was that it
had already applied for licenses in March 2007.
 Second, Essar Group (Ruias brother) also applied for a
license under Loop Telecom through her sister Ms Kiran
Khaitan. Ms Khiatan spent Rs 100,000 to create Loop
Telecom and the balance money of Rs 1,700 crore
came from Ruias. They could not have applied for
license as they already had operation through
Vodafone-Essar company in which they had 33% equity
stake. This major illegality was ignored by Raja.

57.  On 25.09.2007 he declared the cut-off date for receiving
applications as 01.10.2007
 This was to ensure that after his favourite companies have
submitted the applications, the window is closed shortly
 But as on Oct 1, 2007, 575 applications were received
 Then Mr Raja sought advice of Ministry of Law. The
ministry replied that the matter should be referred to GoM.
 Mr Raja protested on this. He wrote to Mr Pranab
Mukherjee and the PM
 Within his ministry, two senior officers had objected to his
approach. Mr Raja waited for their retirement on
December 31, 2007
 He brought in his favourite officer (Mr Siddhartha Behura
as Secretary DoT). Thereafter, he got PM‟s nod on
Jan3, 2008.

58.  On January 10, 2008, he issued first Press Release on DoT‟s
web site stating that the applications of only those have been
considered who had applied till 25.09.2007. This way he
preponed the cut-off date to suit his favourite companies.
Thereafter, he put up another Press Release at about 2:45pm
on the same day disclosing a list of shortlisted companies and
asking them to come between 3:30 to 4:30 PM to collect the
LOIs. He also said that whosoever complies with the
conditions of LOIs first (that means deposit of Rs 1,658 crore
by draft, Bank Guarantees worth several hundred crores
separate for each service areas), will be issued spectrum first.
So, his friends knew about these conditions. They kept their
drafts and guarantees ready one day in advance and were
first to comply with LOI condition and were first to get
spectrum.
 This way even the FCFS policy was altered; earlier it used to
be date of application and everyone used to be given 15 days
time for compliance; Mr Raja even changed the FCFS policy
to date of compliance of LOIs. Later, the CAG found that out
of 122 licenses, 85 did not meet eligibility criteria.

59. OVERVIEW OF POLICIES – NTP-94
 OBJECTIVE :
 Providing telephone on demand
 Provision of world-class services at reasonable prices
 Universal availability of basic telecom services to all
villages.
 NTP-1994 recognized that private sector was
required to bridge the large resource gap.

60. OVERVIEW OF POLICIES – NTP-99
 Licensing of all telecom services thereafter was to
be under the policy framework of NTP-99
 It lifted restrictions on the number of service
providers making it open for participation by all
bidders who satisfied the conditions of the DoT
 Migration from fixed licence fee regime to revenue
sharing regime
(The percentage of revenue share depended on the
service area where they offered their services)

61. OVERVIEW OF POLICIES – LICENSING OF UAS
 The Union Cabinet approved the policy for licensing
of Unified Access Services
 GoM considered recommendations submitted by
TRAI on 27 October 2003.
 Guidelines for issue of licenses under UAS were
issued on 11 November 2003
 Now licenses were issued only under UAS

62. OVERVIEW OF POLICIES – APRIL’07
 In April 2007, DoT sought the opinion of TRAI on:
 Putting a cap on the number of service providers in a
service area
 TRAI recommended (Aug‟07) that no cap be placed
 DoT issued 122 new licences to 17 companies in
2008 and spectrum was allotted to all operators
except for four in Delhi service area (Dec‟09).

63. OVERVIEW OF POLICIES – AUGUST’07
 TRAI recommended that
“a licensee using one technology may be permitted on
request, usage of alternative technology and thus
allocation of dual spectrum. However, such a licensee
must pay the same amount of fee which has been paid
by the existing licenses using the alternative technology
or which would be paid by the new licensee going to use
that technology”
 35 licenses were permitted to use dual spectrum
and allocated spectrum in 2007-08

64. ROLE OF TELECOM REGULATORY AUTHORITY OF
INDIA (TRAI)
 Set up in March 1997
 Its mandate included making recommendations on the
following:
 need and timing for introduction of new service providers.
 terms and conditions of the licences to be given to service
providers and
 efficient management of the available spectrum.
 According to TRAI ACT, 1997 TRAI was to regulate
telecom services,
 Original Act of 1997 was amended by the TRAI
(Amendment) Act 2000. The new Act provided for the
establishment of two separate bodies
 Telecom Dispute Settlement and Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT)
 TRAI for regulatory functions.
 Thus, TRAI as a regulator has only an advisory role in
the policy matters.

65. ISSUE OF PRICE DISCOVERY OF SPECTRUM WAS OVER
LOOKED
 TRAI in October 2003, while recommending Unified
Services Licensing, had proposed to submit a
separate report regarding spectrum allocation and
pricing. Based on these inputs, Cabinet, in its
decision of 31 October 2003 while charting the
course to the UAS and US licencing regime had
also approved the following:
 adequate spectrum would be made available for
unimpeded growth of Telecom services for which WPC
wing of the DoT and Ministry of Defence(MoD) should
coordinate;
 MoF will provide MoD adequate budget
 DoT and MoF would finalise pricing formula for
spectrum

66.  Spectrum pricing issue was to be decided in
consultation with MoF. However, when a GoM was
constituted in Feb‟06, its Terms of Reference (ToR)
were modified to keep the issue of spectrum pricing
outside its purview
 Though MoF insisted for its inclusion in the ToR for
the GoM, DoT maintained that 'spectrum pricing was
within the normal work carried out by them'. Thus,
without the contribution of MoF, new licences
continued to be issued along with the spectrum
 DoT kept applications for UAS licence pending since
Mar‟06 on the grounds of non-availability of
spectrum, though a decision to get the spectrum
vacated from MoD was taken way back in 2003

67.  Again in Aug‟07, TRAI observed that entry fee as it
existed in 2001 was now not a realistic price. It
observed that value of spectrum was not correctly
reflected and recommended again for de-linking of
spectrum from licence.
 Right from August 2003 MoF had been
recommending greater orientation in spectrum
allocation, keeping efficiency and optimal utilization
considerations in mind, through auction to
users, who are willing to pay the maximum fee

68.  Directions of the Union Cabinet (Oct‟03) and absence
of requisite clarity in the recommendations of TRAI
and decision of the Union Cabinet, prudent principles
of governance would have required DoT to engage in
further inter-ministerial discussions particularly with
the MoF. The fact that this was not done despite
repeated advices from MoF does give scope for
creation of doubt, on the validity of the decision taken
to fix the entry fee for new licenses at 2001 levels

69. TIME LINE
 May 16, 2007: A Raja Becomes Telecom Minister
 Aug, 2007: Process of allotment of 2G spectrum for telecom
along with Universal Access Service (UAS) Licences initiated by
the Department of Telecommunications (DoT)
 Oct 11, 2007: DoT gets 575 applications for mobile licenses
 Nov 2, 2007: The Prime Minister writes to Raja directing him to
ensure allotment of 2G spectrum in a fair and transparent
manner and to ensure that licence fee was properly revised. Raja
writes back to the Prime Minister rejecting many of his
recommendations
 Nov 22, 2007: Finance Ministry writes to DoT raising concerns
over the procedure adopted by it. Demand for review rejected

70.  Jan 10, 2008: DoT decides to issue licences on first-come-first-serve
basis, preponing the cut-off date to September 25, from October 1, 2007.
Later on the same day, DoT posted an announcement on its website
saying those who apply between 3.30 pm and 4.30 pm would be issued
licences in accordance with the said policy
 May 4, 2009: An NGO Telecom Watchdog files complaint to the Central
Vigilance Commission (CVC) on the illegalities in the spectrum allocation
to Loop Telecom
 May 19, 2009: Another complaint was filed to the CVC by Arun
Agarwal, highlighting grant of spectrum to Swan Telecom at throwaway
prices
 2009: CVC directs CBI to investigate these irregularities in allocation of
2G spectrum
 Oct 21, 2009: Irregularities in spectrum allocation. CBI searches DoT
office

71.  Oct 23, 2009: CBI raids DoT offices over spectrum row
 Nov 16, 2009: CBI seeks details of tapped conversation of corporate
lobbyist Niira Radia to find out involvement of middlemen in the grant
of spectrum to telecom companies
 Aug 18, 2010: HC refuses to direct the Prime Minister to decide on a
complaint by Janata Party chief Swamy seeking sanction to
prosecute Raja for his involvement in 2G scam
 Sept 13, 2010: SC asks government, Raja to reply within 10 days to
three petitions filed by CPIL and others alleging there was aRs
70,000 crore scam in the grant of telecom licences in 2008
 Oct 8, 2010: SC asks government to respond to CAG report about
the scam

72.  Nov 10, 2010: CAG submits report on 2G spectrum to government
stating loss of Rs 1.76 lakh crore to exchequer
 Nov 11, 2010: DoT files affidavit in SC saying CAG did not have the
authority to question the policy decision as per which licence were
issued to new players in 2008
 Nov 14, 2010: A Raja resigns as Telecom Minister
 Nov 22, 2010: CBI tells SC it will file charge sheet in the case within
three months
 Nov 25, 2010: SC ticks off CBI for not questioning Raja.
 Nov 29, 2010: CBI files status report on 2G spectrum scam probe

73.  Nov 30, 2010: SC questions CVC P J Thomas‟s moral right to
supervise CBI‟s probe into 2G spectrum scam as he himself was
Telecom Secretary at that point of time
 Dec 1, 2010: Raja questions CAG findings in the SC.
 Dec 2, 2010: Government places recorded tapes in the SC.
 Dec 2, 2010: SC comes down heavily on Raja for bypassing and
overruling PM‟s advice to defer allocation of 2G spectrum by a few
days.
 Dec 8, 2010: SC asks Centre to consider setting up of a special court
to try 2G spectrum scam case

74.  Dec 14, 2010: Another PIL in SC seeking cancellation of new
telecom licences and 2G spectrum allocated during Raja‟s tenure.
 Dec 15, 2010: Swamy files petition in a Delhi court seeking his
inclusion as a public prosecutor in 2G spectrum case
 Dec 16, 2010: SC decides to monitor the CBI inquiry
 Jan 4, 2011: Swamy moves SC seeking cancellation of 2G spectrum
licences
 Jan 10, 2011: Supreme Court issues notice to Centre on the plea
seeking cancellation of 2G licenses. Also issues notices to 11
companies which allegedly did not fulfil the roll-out obligations or
were ineligible

75.  Feb 10, 2011: SC asks the CBI to bring under its scanner corporate
houses which were beneficiaries of the 2G spectrum.
 Feb 17, 2011: Raja Sent To Tihar Jail under Judicial Custody
 Mar 1, 2011: CBI tells SC that 63 persons are under scanner.
 Mar 14, 2011: The Delhi High Court sets up special court to deal
exclusively with 2G cases.
 Mar 29, 2011: SC permits CBI to file charge sheet on April 2 instead
of March 31.
 Apr 25, 2011: CBI files charge sheet and court issues summons to
Kanimozhi, Sharad Kumar and Karim Morani taking cognizance of
the charge sheet

76.  May 6, 2011: Kanimozhi and Sharad Kumar appear before court and
file bail pleas while Morani sought exemption from appearance on
medical ground
 May 7, 2011: Special CBI Court reserves order on Kanimozhi and
Sharad Kumar‟s bail applications
 Opposes bail plea of Shahid Balwa, Chandolia
 May 20, 2011: Special CBI Court rejects bail pleas of Kanimozhi and
Sharad Kumar and orders their forthwith arrest saying that there was
a possibility of witnesses being influenced considering the magnitude
of the crime
 July 25, 2011: Arguments on Charge begins. Raja seeks to make
Prime Minister and former finance minister P Chidambaram as

77.  Aug 26, 2011: Special CBI court allows Subramanian Swamy to
argue his own case (mainly to address the possible loop holes in CBI
investigation of the case)
 Sept 15, 2011: Swamy pleads before special CBI court that P
Chidambaram should be made co-accused
 Sept 22, 2011: CBI defends Chidambaram in SC, blames DoT for all
wrongs.
 Sept 26, 2011: CBI moves plea for framing fresh charge for criminal
breach of trust against Raja, Chandolia and Behura
 Oct 10, 2011: The Supreme Court reserves order against
Subramanian Swamy‟s plea for a probe into Home Minister
Chidambaram‟s role in the 2G scam

78.  Nov 3, 2011: Special CBI court dismisses bail pleas of all the 8 applicants
(including Kanimozhi)
 Nov 8, 2011: Special CBI court orders CBI to give copy of file on sale of equity by
telecom companies (for investigating P Chidambaram's involvement) to Swamy
 Nov 9, 2011: Delhi HC refuses to grant interim bail to Karim Morani on health
grounds wondering Why everybody falls sick once he is in custody?
 Nov 11, 2011: Trial of the 17 accused begins in Patiala House special CBI court
 Nov 14, 2011: : UPA govt moves SC seeking to restrain Dr Subramanian
Swamy from making public allegations against the UPA leadership
 Nov 22, 2011: The Special CBI court shifts the trial to the Tihar Jail complex
following a Delhi high court order
 Nov 23, 2011: SC grants bail to 5 corporate executives

79. Procedures Adopted in Issue of UAS
Licences and Allotment of Spectrum

80. ISSUE OF UAS LICENCES AND ALLOCATION OF
2G SPECTRUM
Licences were to be issued on continuous
basis without any restriction on the number
of entrants in a service area and
applications were to be processed within 30
days of submission
Gaps in implementation of policy led to a
situation, when on the one hand allocation of
spectrum was not delinked from licences
and on the other hand applications for new
licences continued to be received by the
DoT without framing guidelines for UASL

81. CONTD...
This largely opaque and uncertain delivery system
coupled with fast paced growth in the telecom sector
during the decade led to heavy rush of companies to the
sector
After issuing 51 new licences under UAS regime since
2004, and keeping 53 applications pending from January
2006, DoT sought recommendation from TRAI in April
2007 on the issue of limiting the number of access
providers in each service area. TRAI, in its report of 28
August 2007 recommended 'no cap' on the number of
licences.

82. CONTD...
Despite the TRAI's recommendation, on 24
September 2007 DoT issued a Press Release
stating that applications for issue of licences would
be accepted only up to 01.10.2007. This press
notification signalled the possibility of an impending
cap in the number of licences to be awarded, which
led to a sudden spurt in applications
Undue Haste in Receiving
and Processing Applications

83. APPROVAL OF TELECOM COMMISSION NOT TAKEN
The recommendations of the TRAI (2007) were
crucial from the perspective of the
management of the Telecom sector and
spectrum management and yet they were not
put up to the full Telecom Commission before
the acceptance of the recommendations
In view of the unprecedented response from
the applicants and the fact that the DoT was
not equipped to cope up with the huge
demand, they approached Ministry of Law &
Justice

84. ADVICE OF THE HON'BLE MINISTER OF LAW AND
JUSTICE WAS IGNORED BY DOT
It is necessary that the whole issue is first
considered by an Empowered Group of
Ministers (EGoM) and in that process
legal opinion of the Attorney General can
be obtained
Treated as “out of context” by the
MOC&IT and a reference to
EGoM was deliberately avoided.

85. CONTD..
The Government of India (Transaction of
Business) Rules, 1961 stipulates that when the
subject of a case concerns more than one
department, no decision be taken or order issued
until all such departments have
concurred, or, failing such concurrence, a decision
thereon has been taken by or under the authority
of the Cabinet
DoT justified its actions on the ground that the
reference was made to the Ministry of Law
and Justice and that their advice was
discussed in the Department and the existing
policy for grant of UAS licences was approved
by the MoC& IT as any change could have led
to litigation and not sustainable under law

86. HON'BLE PRIME MINISTER'S SUGGESTION TO
RECONSIDER THE PRICING WAS IGNORED
Prime Minister wrote to MoC&IT that DoT
should consider
• (i) Introduction of a transparent methodology of auction,
wherever legally and technically feasible
• (ii) Revision of entry fee, which is currently bench marked
on an old figure
It will be unfair, discriminatory, arbitrary and
capricious to auction spectrum to new
applicants as it will not give the level playing
field.

88. APPLICANTS SUBMITTED PRE-DATED DEMAND DRAFTS
13 applicants were even ready
with Demand Drafts (DDs) drawn
on dates prior to the notification of
cut off date
These applicants had advance information about the
issue of this notification by the DoT which enabled them
to take appropriate advance action to draw the DDs and
prepare other relevant documents for complying with the
LoI conditions in spite of the changed time limit for
compliance from 15 days to about half a day.

89. DOT'S OWN “FCFS” POLICY NOT FOLLOWED
MoC&IT arbitrarily decided to issue Letter of Intents to all
applicants, who had submitted their applications between
March 2006 and 25 September 2007 thereby depriving
the applicants, who had submitted their applications
earlier, of their seniority and resultant claim to get the
LoIs first.

90. ISSUE OF LICENSE TO INELIGIBLE APPLICANTS
Process followed by the DoT for verification of
applications for UAS licences for confirming their
eligibility lacked due diligence, fairness and
transparency leading to grant of licences to
applicants who were not eligible.
85 out of 122 licenses issued in 2008 were found
to be issued to Companies which did not satisfy
the basic eligibility conditions and had suppressed
facts, disclosed incomplete information and
submitted fictitious documents for getting UAS
licenses and thereby access to spectrum.

91. THE ENTIRE PROCESS OF ALLOTMENT OF UAS
LICENSES IN JANUARY 2008 LACKED
TRANSPARENCY AND APPEARED TO HAVE BEEN
DONE WITH THE OBJECTIVE OF FAVOURING A FEW
FIRMS OVER OTHERS.

92. FINANCIAL IMPACT
 Whether the entry fee was expected to reflect the value of the
spectrum at all?
 The 2003 Cabinet decision intended to make the UAS licence
only an instrument to enter the business of providing cellular and
other telecom services irrespective of the technology used for the
purpose
 Companies could obtain spectrum of required type by paying its
price through auction or any other arrangement decided by an
independent regulator to be set up for spectrum pricing and
management
 Since no price discovery of spectrum was attempted for 2G
spectrum separately, the entry fee discovered in 2001 is mainly
the price of spectrum that came with UAS licence.

93. UNDER PRICING OF 2G AND CONSEQUENT LOSS
 UASL applicant had offered higher price
 If the price offered by S Tel Ltd which he proposed to revise upwards in case of any counter
bids, is used as indicator of market valuation of 6.2 MHz of 2G spectrum at that time, value in
respect of all 122 new licences and 35 licences under dual technology after discounting the
receivables of the future years work out to ` 65,909 crore as against ` 12,386 crore collected
by the DoT.
 Value based on prices discovered for 3G spectrum
 If price is calculated at 3G rates which can also be taken as one of the indicators for assessing
the value of 2G spectrum allocated to UAS licensees in 2008, the total difference in value
worked out to ` 1,39,652 crore .
 Sale of equity by UAS licensee firms at higher value
 Three companies viz. Swan Telecom, S Tel and Unitech were new entrants in the telecom
sector. The fact that these operators could draw huge foreign investments, even before
establishing a foothold in the Indian telecom market would suggest that acquiring UASL and
with it, allotment of 4.4 MHz of GSM spectrum for roll out, was the main factor which attracted
the foreign investment.
 A comparison of foreign equity attracted by the new entrants in the Indian telecom market
would reveal that the cost of a pan India licence could be a value between ` 7758 crore to `
9100 crore. However, the DoT issued pan India licences at ` 1658 crore.

94. CONCLUSIONS
 The entire process of allocation of UAS licences lacked
transparency and was undertaken in an arbitrary, unfair and
inequitable manner
 The DoT did not follow its own guidelines on eligibility conditions, arbitrarily
changed the cutoff date for receipt of applications post facto and altered the
conditions of the FCFS procedure at crucial junctures without valid
reasons, which gave unfair advantage to certain companies over others.
 The Department of Telecommunications also did not do the requisite due
diligence in the examination of the applications submitted for the UAS
licenses, leading to the grant of 85 out of 122 UAS licences to ineligible
applicants.
 Dual Technology was also introduced by the DoT in October 2007 in a
hasty and arbitrary manner and in-principle approval was given to 3
operators on a day prior to the announcement of the policy, which gave the
perception of discrimination against other players in the field
 The entire process of allocation of 2G spectrum raises serious
concern about the systems of governance in the Department of
Telecommunications which need to be thoroughly reviewed and
revamped. To ensure that such lapses do not occur in any Ministry or

114. RIGHT TO
INFORMATION
ACT, 2005

115. RTI - INTRODUCTION
 Enacted for citizens to secure access to information under
the control of Public Authorities in order to promote
transparency and accountability in the working of any
public authority.
 Law was passed by Parliament on 15 June 2005.
 Came fully into force on 13 October 2005
 Failure of “Freedom Of Information
Act,2002” – Severe criticism
 Public Authorities are required to:
 Reply within 30 days
 Computerize their records
 Pro-actively publish certain
categories of information

116. SCOPE
 Act covers the whole of India except Jammu and
Kashmir
 J & K – J & K Right to Information Act
 Applicable to all constitutional authorities, including
the executive, legislature and judiciary; any
institution or body established or constituted by an
act of Parliament or a state legislature.
 Private bodies are not within the Act's ambit directly

117. RTI
 Includes access to information which is held by or under the
control of any public authority and includes the right to
inspect the work, document, records, taking notes, extracts
or certified copies of documents / records and certified
samples of the materials and obtaining information which is
also stored in electronic form.
 The Act empowers every citizen to:
 Ask any questions from the Government or seek any information.
 Take copies of any governmental documents.
 Inspect any governmental documents.
 Inspect any Governmental works.
 Take samples of materials of any Governmental work.

118. PROCESS
 All authorities covered must appoint their Public Information
Officer (PIO).
 Person must submit a request to the PIO for information in
writing.
 PIO's obligation to provide information to citizens of India who
request information.
 In addition, every public authority is required to designate
Assistant Public Information Officers (APIOs)
 Applicant not required to disclose any information or reasons
other than his name and contact particulars to seek the

119. TIME LIMITS
The Act specifies time limits for replying to the request:
 If the request has been made to the PIO, the reply is to be
given within 30 days of receipt.
 If the request has been made to an APIO, the reply is to be
given within 35 days of receipt.
 If the PIO transfers the request to another public authority, the
time allowed to reply is 30 days but computed from the day
after it is received by the PIO of the transferee authority.
 Information concerning corruption and Human Rights
violations by scheduled Security agencies (those listed in the
Second Schedule to the Act) is to be provided within 45 days
but with the prior approval of the Central Information
Commission.
 However, if life or liberty of any person is involved, the PIO is
expected to reply within 48 hours.

120. CHARGES
 Fee for filing request : Rs 10
 Rs 2 per page of information
 Rs 5 for each hour of inspection after the first hour.
 If applicant is a Below Poverty Card holder, then no
fee shall apply.
(For Central Depts., Yr: 2006)
 States Government and High Courts fix their own
rules.

121. EXCLUDED AUTHORITIES
 Central Intelligence and Security agencies specified
in the Second Schedule like
 Directorate General of Income Tax (Investigation)
 RAW
 CBI
 CID
 Directorate of Revenue Intelligence
 Central Economic Intelligence Bureau
 Narcotics Control Bureau
 Aviation Research Centre
 Special Frontier Force, BSF, CRPF, ITBP, CISF, NSG
 Agencies specified by the State Governments through a
Notification will also be excluded.

122. EXCLUDED INFORMATION
The following is exempt from disclosure (Section: 8)
 Information, disclosure of which would prejudicially
affect the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security,
"strategic, scientific or economic" interests of the State,
relation with foreign State or lead to incitement of an
offense;
 Information which has been expressly forbidden to be
published by any court of law or tribunal or the
disclosure of which may constitute contempt of court;
 Information, the disclosure of which would cause a
breach of privilege of Parliament or the State
Legislature;

123. CONTD…
 Information including commercial confidence, trade secrets
or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm
the competitive position of a third party, unless the competent
authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the
disclosure of such information;
 Information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship,
unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger
public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;
 Information received in confidence from foreign Government;
 Information, the disclosure of which would endanger the life
or physical safety of any person or identify the source of
information or assistance given in confidence for law
enforcement or security purposes;

124. CONTD…
 Information which would impede the process of investigation or
apprehension or prosecution of offenders;
 Cabinet papers including records of deliberations of the Council
of Ministers, Secretaries and other officers;
 Information which relates to personal information the disclosure of
which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or
which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the
individual (but it is also provided that the information which cannot
be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be
denied by this exemption);
 Notwithstanding any of the exemptions listed above, a public
authority may allow access to information, if public interest in
disclosure outweighs the harm to the protected interests. (NB:
This provision is qualified by the proviso to sub-section 11(1) of
the Act which exempts disclosure of "trade or commercial secrets
protected by law" under this clause when read along with 8(1)(d))

125. CASE STUDY:
CBSE VS.
ADITYA BANDOPADHYAY

126. BRIEF
 Decided On: 09.08.2011
 Appellants: Central Board of Secondary
Education and Anr.
Vs
Respondent: Aditya Bandopadhyay and Ors.
 Honorable Judges:
R.V. Raveendran
A.K. Patnaik, JJ.

127. THE CASE
 Aditya appeared for the Secondary School
Examination, 2008 conducted by the
CBSE.
 When he got the mark sheet he was
disappointed with his marks. He thought
that he had done well in the examination
but his answer-books were not properly
valued and that improper valuation had
resulted in low marks.
 Therefore he made an application for
inspection and re-evaluation of his
answer-books.

128. THE CASE… CONTD
 CBSE rejected the said request.
The reasons for rejection were:
 Information sought was exempted under Section 8(1)(e) of
RTI Act since CBSE shared fiduciary relationship with its
evaluators and maintain confidentiality of both manner and
method of evaluation.
 The Examination Bye-laws of the Board provided that no
candidate shall claim or is entitled to re-evaluation of his
answers or disclosure or inspection of answer book(s) or
other documents.
 The larger public interest does not warrant the disclosure of
such information sought.

129. ADITYA BANDHOPADHYAY’S PETITION
 For a declaration that the action of CBSE in excluding the provision
of re-evaluation of answer-sheets, in regard to the examinations held
by it was illegal, unreasonable and violative of the provisions of the
Constitution of India;
 For a direction to CBSE to appoint an independent examiner for re-
evaluating his answer-books and issue a fresh marks card on the
basis of re-evaluation;
 For a direction to CBSE to produce his answer-books in regard to the
2008 Secondary School Examination so that they could be properly
reviewed and fresh marks card can be issued with re-evaluation
marks;
 For quashing the communication of CBSE dated 12.7.2008 and for a
direction to produce the answer-books into court for inspection by the
first Respondent. The Respondent contended that Section 8(1)(e) of
Right to Information Act, 2005 ('RTI Act' for short) relied upon by
CBSE was not applicable and relied upon the provisions of the RTI
Act to claim inspection.

130. CBSE’S DEFENSE
CBSE resisted the petition. It contended that as per its Bye-
laws, re-evaluation and inspection of answer-books were
impermissible and what was permissible was only
verification of marks.
Bye – Law No. 61. Verification of marks obtained by a
Candidate in a subject
i. The verification will be restricted to checking whether all
the answer's have been evaluated and that there has
been no mistake in the totaling of marks for each
question in that subject and that the marks have been
transferred correctly on the title page of the answer book
and to the award list and whether the supplementary
answer book(s) attached with the answer book
mentioned by the candidate are intact. No revaluation of
the answer book or supplementary answer book(s) shall
be done.

131. CONTD…
ii) Such an application must be made by the candidate within 21 days
from the date of the declaration of result for Main Examination and
15 days for Compartment Examination.
(iii) All such applications must be accompanied by payment of fee as
prescribed by the Board from time to time.
(iv) No candidate shall claim, or be entitled to, revaluation of his/her
answers or disclosure or inspection of the answer book(s) or other
documents.
(vi) In no case the verification of marks shall be done in the presence
of the candidate or anyone else on his/her behalf, nor will the
answer books be shown to him/her or his/her representative.
(vii) Verification of marks obtained by a candidate will be done by the
officials appointed by or with the approval of the Chairman.
(viii) The marks, on verification will be revised upward or downward, as
per the actual marks obtained by the candidate in his/her answer
book.

132. CONTD…
Bye – Law No. 62. Maintenance of Answer Books
The answer books shall be maintained for a period of
three months and shall thereafter be disposed of in
the manner as decided by the Chairman from time
to time.

133. QUESTIONS TO BE CONSIDERED
1) Whether an examinee's right to information under the RTI
Act includes a right to inspect his evaluated answer books in
a public examination or taking certified copies thereof?
2) Whether the decisions of this Court in Maharashtra State
Board of Secondary Education [MANU/SC/0055/1984 : 1984
(4) SCC 27] and other cases referred to above, in any way
affect or interfere with the right of an examinee seeking
inspection of his answer books or seeking certified copies
thereof?
3) Whether an examining body holds the evaluated answer
books "in a fiduciary relationship" and consequently has no
obligation to give inspection of the evaluated answer books
under Section 8(1)(e) of RTI Act?
4) If the examinee is entitled to inspection of the evaluated
answer books or seek certified copies thereof, whether such
right is subject to any limitations, conditions or safeguards?

134. SECTION 2, CLAUSE (F) : INFORMATION
"information" means any material in any
form, including records, documents, memos, e-
mails, opinions, advices, press
releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, rep
orts, papers, samples, models, data material held in
any electronic form and information relating to any
private body which can be accessed by a public
authority under any other law for the time being in
force;

135. SECTION 2, CLAUSE (H) : PUBLIC AUTHORITY
"Public authority" means any authority or body or
institution of self-government established or
constituted-
(a) by or under the Constitution;
(b) By any other law made by Parliament;
(c) By any other law made by State Legislature;
(d) By notification issued or order made by the
appropriate Government, and includes any-
(i) Body owned, controlled or substantially financed;
(ii) Non-Government organization substantially
financed, directly or indirectly by funds provided by
the appropriate Government;

136. SECTION 2, CLAUSE (I) : RECORD
"Record" includes-
(a) Any document, manuscript and file;
(b) Any microfilm, microfiche and facsimile copy of a
document;
(c) Any reproduction of image or images embodied in
such microfilm (whether enlarged or not); and
(d) any other material produced by a computer or any
other device;

137. SECTION 2, CLAUSE ( J) : RIGHT TO INFORMATION
"Right to information" means the right to
information accessible under this Act which is held
by or under the control of any public authority and
includes the right to-
(i) Inspection of work, documents, records;
(ii) Taking notes, extracts or certified copies of
documents or records;
(iii) Taking certified samples of material;
(iv) Obtaining information in the form of
diskettes, floppies, tapes, video cassettes or in any
other electronic mode or through printouts where
such information is stored in a computer or in any
other device;

138. ANSWER 1)
Held:
 The evaluated answer-book is also an 'information'
under the RTI Act.
 Having regarded to Section 3, the citizens have the
right to access to all information held by or under
the control of any public authority except those
excluded or exempted under the Act.
 The evaluated answer sheets were not found
exempted under Sections 8, 9 & 24.

139. ANSWER 2)
Held:
 The High Court has rightly denied the prayer for re-
evaluation of answer-books sought by the
candidates in view of the bar contained in the rules
and regulations of the examining bodies.
 The decision of this Court in Maharashtra State
Board (supra) and the subsequent decisions
following the same, will not affect or interfere with
the right of the examinee seeking inspection of
answer-books or taking certified copies thereof.

140. ANSWER 3)
 Black's Law Dictionary (7th Edition, Page 640) defines
'fiduciary relationship‟ as:
“A relationship in which one person is under a duty to act for the
benefit of the other on matters within the scope of the
relationship”.
 Fiduciary relationships - such as trustee-beneficiary, guardian-
ward, agent-principal, and attorney-client - require the highest
duty of care. Fiduciary relationships usually arise in one of four
situations:
(i) When one person places trust in the faithful integrity of
another, who as a result gains superiority or influence over the
first,
(ii) When one person assumes control and responsibility over
another,
(iii) When one person has a duty to act for or give advice to
another on matters falling within the scope of the relationship,
or

141. Held:
 It cannot therefore be said that the examining body
is in a fiduciary relationship either with reference to
the examinee who participates in the examination
and whose answer-books are evaluated by the
examining body.
 That an examining body does not hold the
evaluated answer-books in a fiduciary relationship.
Not being information available to an examining
body in its fiduciary relationship, the exemption
under Section 8(1)(e) is not available to the
examining bodies with reference to evaluated
answer-books. As no other exemption under
Section 8 is available in respect of evaluated
answer books, the examining bodies will have to
permit inspection sought by the examinees.

142. ANSWER 4)
Held:
 The right to access information does not extend beyond
the period during which the examining body is expected
to retain the answer-books.
 Indiscriminate and impractical demands or directions
under RTI Act for disclosure of all and sundry
information (unrelated to transparency and
accountability in the functioning of public authorities and
eradication of corruption) would be counter-productive.
 The threat of penalties under the RTI Act and the
pressure of the authorities under the RTI Act should not
lead to employees of a public authorities prioritizing
'information furnishing', at the cost of their normal and
regular duties.

143. JUDGMENT
“In view of the foregoing, the order of the High Court
directing the examining bodies to permit examinees
to have inspection of their answer books is
affirmed, subject to the clarifications regarding the
scope of the RTI Act and the safeguards and
conditions subject to which 'information' should be
furnished. The appeals are disposed of
accordingly.”