Rooz had filed a petition challenging the decision of Calcutta University not to hand over his answerscript on the ground that it should not be treated as information.

The University had also pointed out that the script could not come under the purview of RTI Act, as the student was only too aware of what he had written in the examination.

Rooz had secured 28 in his fifth mathematics paper in his BSc final exams. He had applied for re-evaluation after which the university informed him that his marks in that paper had gone up to 32.

The student then applied for a copy of his answerscript under the RTI Act. But the university turned down his request.

During the hearing, Calcutta University’s counsel Sombudha Chakraborty submitted before Justice Sanjib Banerjee that both the state and Central information commissions were of the view that a student should not be given a copy of the script.

He said a student was fully aware of the contents of the script as the university always published the marks. If a student wants to know, the university could easily provide the marks against each question.

Rooz’s counsel Satadal Chatterjee moved the plea that according to the RTI Act, any manuscript could be sought under its purview. So the answerscript should be treated as a manuscript as it was hand-written.

But Justice Banerjee asked the counsel to explain why an answerscript should be treated as information as it was already known to Rooz.