University result rechecking and revaluation — RTI

Anjali R., a final-year B.Com student at a state university in northern Karnataka, opened her declared result on a Friday evening and found that she had failed Financial Accounting by exactly four marks. The paper had gone well; she had scored above 60 in every other subject. She paid the university's prescribed revaluation fee of Rs.400 per paper, filled the online form, and waited.

Six weeks later the revaluation portal simply said: “Result: No change.” No reason. No revised mark sheet. No one at the exam section would tell her whether a second examiner had even looked at the script, what the original and revised marks were, or why the application was rejected. The college office said “talk to the university”; the university exam window was open two hours a day and the queue was forty students long.

This is the wall almost every university student hits. The revaluation process is opaque by design — the applicant pays, waits, and receives a one-line verdict. What most students do not know is that the Right to Information Act, 2005 breaks that wall. The Supreme Court has held, in case after case, that your evaluated answer book is “information” you are entitled to see, that the university is a public authority, and that the RTI Act overrides university bye-laws that say otherwise. This guide shows you exactly how to use that right — what to ask, where to file, what it costs, and what to do when the Controller of Examinations pushes back.

“Rechecking” and “revaluation” are two distinct processes, and the difference matters for what you ask for.

Rechecking (sometimes called “verification of marks”) is a clerical check: the university confirms whether every answer has been marked and whether the marks have been totalled and transferred to the result sheet correctly. No fresh evaluation is done. The fee is usually small — Rs.100 to Rs.300 per paper, set by each university's own examination bye-laws.

Revaluation (or “re-evaluation”) is a fresh evaluation of the answer script by a second examiner. The fee is higher — typically Rs.300 to Rs.750 per paper, again university-specific. The second examiner does not know the first examiner's marks. If the revised marks fall within a tolerance band set by the university (often plus or minus 10 to 15 percent), the original marks may be retained; if they fall outside, an average or the higher of the two may be taken, depending on the university's rules. There is no national, uniform revaluation code. Each university's examination statute — made under the relevant State University Act or, for central and deemed universities, under the UGC Act, 1956 — governs the mechanics.

The statutory regulator for higher education in India is the University Grants Commission (UGC), established under the UGC Act, 1956, under the Ministry of Education, Department of Higher Education. The UGC is itself a public authority under the RTI Act, and Sections 12(h) and 12(i) of the UGC Act impose a duty on it to collect and make available information on university education and to require universities to furnish information. State public universities are also answerable to their State's Higher Education Department.

A university — whether established by a Central Act, a Provincial Act, a State Act, or declared a deemed university under Section 3 of the UGC Act, 1956 — is a “public authority” under Section 2(h)(b), © or (d) of the RTI Act, 2005. Substantial government financing is not even required for bodies established by legislation. This was confirmed by the Central Information Commission in Mansi Sharma v. University of Delhi, CIC/UODEL/A/2017/157969-BJ (20 November 2018), which held that the Assistant Controller (Revaluation) is part of the public authority. Every public authority must designate Central Public Information Officers under Section 5(1); for exam-related queries, the appropriate CPIO is the Controller of Examinations.

To ask a sharp question, you need to know how a revaluation application travels through the university. A typical state university flow looks like this:

1. Step 1 — Application and fee. You submit an online or offline revaluation form after the result is declared, within a window of about 7 to 15 days, paying the per-paper fee set by the university.
2. Step 2 — Script retrieval. The exam section pulls your evaluated answer book from storage. Answer books are usually retained for a limited period under the university's record-retention policy — often three to six months after the result, sometimes up to a year.
3. Step 3 — Second evaluation. The script is sent to a fresh evaluator who marks it independently, without seeing the first marks.
4. Step 4 — Moderation. A moderation committee compares the two sets of marks, applies the university's tolerance/revision criteria, and records a decision.
5. Step 5 — Result update. If marks change, a revised grade is issued; if not, the portal simply says “no change.”

Each of these steps generates a record — a receipt, an evaluator assignment sheet, a moderation note, a marks-revision log, a committee minute. Those records are exactly what the RTI Act gives you the right to inspect and copy. The Supreme Court has been clear: the answer book itself, and the records around it, are “information” under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act.

The legal position has been settled for years, but enforcement is still catching up. The two cases every student should know:

CBSE v. Aditya Bandopadhyay, (2011) 8 SCC 497 (decided 9 August 2011) held that evaluated answer books are “information” under Section 2(f); the examining body does not hold them in a fiduciary relationship, so the Section 8(1)(e) exemption does not apply; every examinee has the right to inspect and obtain certified copies of evaluated answer books under the RTI Act; Section 22 overrides contrary university bye-laws; examiner identities must be severed under Section 10 read with Section 8(1)(g); and access is limited to the period the examining body retains the records.

ICSI v. Paras Jain, (2019) Civil Appeal No. 5665/2014, decided 11 April 2019 (Ramana and Nazeer JJ) settled the fee question: when a candidate seeks answer sheets under the RTI Act, the examining body can charge only the RTI-prescribed fee — Rs.10 application plus Rs.2 per page for copies — not the university's own Rs.500 or Rs.750 “revaluation photocopy” fee. The higher fee applies only if the candidate voluntarily opts for the university's separate photocopy route.

After CBSE tried to resist, the Supreme Court issued a contempt order on 16 August 2016 in Kumar Shanu v. YSK Seshu Kumar, Chairman CBSE, directing CBSE to “scrupulously observe” Aditya Bandopadhyay and the RTI Rules; a follow-up order in October 2018 recorded CBSE's agreement to provide answer sheets at Rs.2 per page under the RTI Rules. The CIC applied the same rule to Delhi University in Abner Ingty v. CPIO, Delhi University, CIC/SA/C/2015/901116 (15 January 2016), holding that DU's own RTI Manual No. 17 prescribed Rs.2 per page and that Section 22 overrides its Rs.750-per-paper charge, and directed UGC and MHRD to circulate the order to all universities.

What this means in 2026: the law is unambiguous. The right is to inspect and obtain a certified copy of your evaluated answer book at the RTI rate, and to receive the moderation criteria and the marks-revision statistics for your course. What RTI does not give you is a fresh re-evaluation or a direction to change marks — the Supreme Court in Aditya Bandopadhyay expressly noted that “re-evaluation is not a right under the RTI Act.” Your remedy to actually change the marks lies in the university's own grievance redressal mechanism, a writ petition, or consumer forum — RTI gives you the evidence to power those remedies.

Step 1 — Identify the public authority and the PIO. Your university is the public authority. The correct PIO for exam-related queries is the Central Public Information Officer, Office of the Controller of Examinations of the university (not the college, not the Vice-Chancellor's office). For a central university or a deemed university, you can file online through the Central RTI portal at https://rtionline.gov.in . For a state public university, file offline or through your state's RTI online portal (where one exists), addressed to the CPIO, Controller of Examinations. See RTI for Beginners: Everything You Need to Know Before Filing Your for the step-by-step online filing process.

Step 2 — Prepare your particulars. Have these ready before you write: full name, roll number, registration/enrolment number, course and semester, subject code and subject name, date of result declaration, revaluation application number and date, and the fee receipt number. Without roll number and subject code the PIO can reject the application as “vague.”

Step 3 — Draft your questions. Ask for specific, dated records. Five strong sample questions:

1. Status and outcome: “Furnish the status and outcome of my revaluation application No. [number] dated [date] for [subject code and name], including the date the application was received, the date it was disposed of, the original marks awarded, and the revised marks, if any.”
2. Answer book inspection and copy: “Permit inspection of, and furnish a certified copy at Rs.2 per page of, my evaluated answer book for [subject code], in terms of CBSE v. Aditya Bandopadhyay, (2011) 8 SCC 497 and ICSI v. Paras Jain, (2019). I do not seek the names or identities of the examiners, which may be severed under Section 10.”
3. Moderation criteria: “Furnish the moderation/revision criteria applied to my answer book for [subject], including the tolerance band, the rule for averaging or selecting between examiner marks, and the relevant extract of the university's examination statute, in terms of ICAI v. Shaunak H. Satya, (2011) 8 SCC 781.”
4. Marks-revision statistics: “Furnish anonymised, aggregate marks-revision statistics for [subject code] in the [semester] examination — namely, the total number of revaluation applications received, the number in which marks were revised, and the range of revision — without disclosing any personal data of other students.”
5. Grievance committee minutes: “Furnish the minutes, if any, of the university's Examination Grievance Redressal Committee concerning my application, with dates and decisions.”

Step 4 — Pay the correct fee. For a central university, the fee is Rs.10 under the RTI Rules, 2012, payable by Indian Postal Order, court-fee stamp, cash against receipt, or online through the Central portal. For copies, the rate is Rs.2 per page; inspection of records is free for the first hour and Rs.5 for each subsequent hour. BPL applicants are exempt from the application fee on production of proof. For a state university, most states also prescribe Rs.10 — but confirm your state's RTI Rules, because a few states charge less (for example, some states waive or reduce the fee for BPL and women applicants). See RTI Fees by State and Online Portal Directory (2026) for the state-wise fee and mode-of-payment table.

Step 5 — Submit and keep proof. File by hand at the Controller's office and take a stamped receiving copy, or send by registered post and keep the acknowledgement, or file online and save the registration number. Proof of submission is your protection if the reply is delayed or denied.

Step 6 — Wait 30 days. The CPIO must reply within 30 days under Section 7(1) of the RTI Act (48 hours where life or liberty is involved, which exam queries are not). If the answer book is due for destruction under the university's retention policy, file promptly after the result — the right exists only while the record exists.

1. A photocopy of your admit card / hall ticket showing your roll number.
2. A photocopy of the result printout or grade sheet for the relevant semester.
3. The revaluation application acknowledgement and fee receipt issued by the university.
4. Proof of BPL status if you are claiming the fee exemption.
5. For online filing on the Central portal, a scanned copy of any one of the above if the portal asks for an attachment.

1. Filing at the college instead of the university's Controller of Examinations. The college does not hold the answer books. File at the university CPIO to avoid a Section 6(3) transfer that eats your timeline.
2. Asking for “re-evaluation” under RTI. The Supreme Court in Aditya Bandopadhyay held that re-evaluation is not a right under the RTI Act. Ask for inspection, certified copy, moderation criteria, and statistics — the evidence — not for marks to be changed.
3. Paying the university's Rs.500/Rs.750 photocopy fee for an RTI copy. ICSI v. Paras Jain fixes the RTI copy rate at Rs.2 per page. The higher fee applies only to the university's separate, voluntary photocopy route. Cite the case.
4. Demanding examiner names. Examiner identities are protected under Section 8(1)(g) read with Section 10 and must be severed. Ask for the pattern and qualifications of evaluators (first/second/moderator), not their names — otherwise the PIO has a lawful ground to refuse part of your request.
5. Forgetting to cite roll number, subject code and revaluation application number. Without these, the application is “vague” and can be rejected under Section 6(1).
6. Relying on the old view that answer books cannot be inspected. The 1984 decision in Paritosh B. Sheth, (1984) 4 SCC 27, no longer bars inspection under the RTI Act — it was overtaken by Aditya Bandopadhyay in 2011. If the PIO cites it, point to Section 22.
7. Waiting too long. The right to access your answer book lasts only as long as the university retains it under its own record-retention policy. File within weeks of the “no change” result, not months.

1. First appeal: If no reply comes within 30 days, or the reply is evasive, file a First Appeal under Section 19(1) with the First Appellate Authority — usually the Registrar or the Vice-Chancellor's nominee — within 30 days of the deadline. The FAA must decide within 30 days, extendable to 45.
2. Second appeal: If the FAA also fails you, file a Second Appeal under Section 19(3) with the Central Information Commission (for a central/deemed university) or your State Information Commission (for a state university) within 90 days.
3. Penalty: Under Section 20, the Information Commission can impose a penalty of Rs.250 per day up to Rs.25,000 on a PIO who refuses to reply without reasonable cause, and can direct compensation for any loss suffered.
4. Complaint under Section 18: If the PIO never replied at all or refused to accept the application, you can also file a direct complaint to the Information Commission.

Use the First Appeal tool at https://righttoinformation.wiki/tools/first-appeal-app.html to draft your first appeal, and the PIO reply checker at https://righttoinformation.wiki/tools/pio-reply-checker-app.html to test whether the reply you received is legally adequate before escalating.

To: The Central Public Information Officer
    Office of the Controller of Examinations
    [Name of University], [City]

Subject: Application under Section 6(1) of the RTI Act, 2005 —
         Revaluation status and answer book inspection

Sir/Madam,

I, [full name], roll number [number], registration number [number],
student of [course], semester [number], hereby request the following
information under Section 6(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005,
read with Section 2(f), Section 7(1) and Section 10:

1. The status and outcome of my revaluation application No. [number]
   dated [date] for subject code [code] ([subject name]), including
   the date received, date disposed, original marks, and revised marks.

2. Permission to inspect, and a certified copy at Rs.2 per page of,
   my evaluated answer book for subject code [code], in terms of
   CBSE v. Aditya Bandopadhyay, (2011) 8 SCC 497, and ICSI v. Paras
   Jain, (2019). The names/identities of the examiners may be severed
   under Section 10 read with Section 8(1)(g).

3. The moderation/revision criteria applied to my answer book,
   including the tolerance band and the rule for selecting between
   examiner marks, in terms of ICAI v. Shaunak H. Satya, (2011)
   8 SCC 781.

4. Anonymised, aggregate marks-revision statistics for subject code
   [code] in the [semester] examination — number of revaluation
   applications received, number revised, and range of revision —
   without personal data of other students.

5. Minutes, if any, of the Examination Grievance Redressal Committee
   concerning my application, with dates and decisions.

The application fee of Rs.10 is paid by [Indian Postal Order No. /
court-fee stamp / cash receipt / online transaction ID]. I belong to
the Below Poverty Line category and enclose proof of BPL status
[if applicable — delete if not].

If the information is partly exempt, please furnish the severable
portion under Section 10. If this office does not hold the records,
please transfer the application under Section 6(3) within five days.

Place: [city]                                      Date: [date]
                                              [signature]
                                              [name, contact]

Yes. The Supreme Court in CBSE v. Aditya Bandopadhyay, (2011) 8 SCC 497, held that an evaluated answer book is “information” under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act and that you have the right to inspect it and obtain a certified copy. Section 22 of the RTI Act overrides any university bye-law that says otherwise. You do not get a fresh re-evaluation through RTI, but you get the evidence — the script, the moderation criteria, and the statistics — that lets you challenge the result elsewhere.

Under the RTI Rules, 2012, the application fee is Rs.10 and copies are charged at Rs.2 per page. The Supreme Court in ICSI v. Paras Jain, (2019) confirmed that when you seek answer sheets under the RTI Act, the examining body can charge only the RTI-prescribed fee — not its own Rs.500 or Rs.750 “revaluation photocopy” fee. The higher fee applies only if you voluntarily choose the university's separate photocopy route. Inspection of records is free for the first hour and Rs.5 for each subsequent hour.

At the university — specifically at the CPIO, Office of the Controller of Examinations. The college does not hold evaluated answer books or revaluation records. The Central Information Commission in Mansi Sharma v. University of Delhi (2018) treated the Assistant Controller (Revaluation) as part of the public authority. Filing at the college only triggers a transfer under Section 6(3) and costs you days.

No, and you should not. Examiner identities are protected under Section 8(1)(g) read with Section 10 of the RTI Act and must be severed from any disclosure. The Supreme Court in both Aditya Bandopadhyay and ICAI v. Shaunak H. Satya treated examiner identity as exempt. Ask instead for the pattern of evaluation (first examiner, second examiner, moderator) and the moderation criteria — those are disclosable. Asking for names gives the PIO a lawful ground to refuse part of your request.

That defence no longer holds. Section 22 of the RTI Act gives it overriding effect over inconsistent university bye-laws, and the Supreme Court in Aditya Bandopadhyay said so expressly. If the PIO cites the older 1984 decision in Paritosh B. Sheth, point out that it was overtaken by Aditya Bandopadhyay in 2011. Cite both cases in your application to pre-empt the refusal.

Yes. The right exists only for as long as the university retains the answer book under its own record-retention policy — often three to six months after the result is declared, sometimes up to a year. RTI does not oblige the university to keep records longer than its own policy. File within weeks of receiving the “no change” result, not months, so the script is not destroyed before your request reaches the exam section.

No. The Supreme Court in Aditya Bandopadhyay expressly noted that “re-evaluation is not a right under the RTI Act.” RTI gives you the evidence — the script, the moderation criteria, the statistics — that lets you seek a correction through the university's grievance redressal committee, a writ petition before the High Court, or a consumer forum. The example above shows how the certified copy became the basis for a successful writ petition.

File a First Appeal under Section 19(1) within 30 days of the deadline with the First Appellate Authority (usually the Registrar). If the FAA also fails, file a Second Appeal under Section 19(3) with the Central Information Commission (for central/deemed universities) or your State Information Commission (for state universities) within 90 days. Under Section 20, the Commission can levy a penalty of Rs.250 per day up to Rs.25,000 on an errant PIO and order compensation. Use the timeline calculator at https://righttoinformation.wiki/tools/timeline-calculator-app.html to track your deadlines.

Yes. A deemed university declared under Section 3 of the UGC Act, 1956 is a “public authority” under Section 2(h)(d) of the RTI Act. The CIC and several High Courts have held so. You file with the CPIO of the deemed university; if it is a Central-funded institution, you can also use the Central portal at https://rtionline.gov.in . See Degree or Marksheet Delayed? RTI to the University Registrar for the related question of verifying a degree issued by a deemed university.

1. Right to Information Act, 2005 — full text: [cic.gov.in](https://rtionline.gov.in)
2. CBSE v. Aditya Bandopadhyay, (2011) 8 SCC 497 (9 August 2011): [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1519371/)
3. ICAI v. Shaunak H. Satya, (2011) 8 SCC 781 (2 September 2011): [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1548289/)
4. ICSI v. Paras Jain, (2019) Civil Appeal No. 5665/2014 (11 April 2019): [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/28358059/)
5. Kumar Shanu v. YSK Seshu Kumar, Chairman CBSE, contempt order (16 August 2016): [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/59180162/)
6. Abner Ingty v. CPIO, Delhi University, CIC/SA/C/2015/901116 (15 January 2016): [aiu.ac.in](https://www.aiu.ac.in/documents/rti/CIC_SA_A_2015_901116_M_176862.pdf)
7. Mansi Sharma v. University of Delhi, CIC/UODEL/A/2017/157969-BJ (20 November 2018): [indiankanoon.org](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/53181192/)
8. UGC Act, 1956: [ugc.gov.in](https://www.ugc.gov.in)
9. Central RTI online portal: [rtionline.gov.in](https://rtionline.gov.in)
10. Central Information Commission: [cic.gov.in](https://cic.gov.in)
11. RTI Rules, 2012 (fee and copy charges): [niti.gov.in](https://niti.gov.in/sites/default/files/2025-07/RTI%20Rules%20Final%20PDF.pdf)

1. RTI to inspect your answer sheet
2. RTI for answer sheet evaluation
3. RTI for CBSE re-evaluation records 2026
4. RTI for exam result delay
5. RTI for degree verification
6. RTI for college affiliation
7. RTI for beginners — citizen primer

Last reviewed: 4 July 2026.