Governments invariably talk of their serious commitment to bringing in total transparency in every walk of governance but, in reality, seldom project shows keenness on putting it to practice. The manner in which the Right to Information Act (RTI) is being resisted and scuttled by the bureaucracy at every stage is now one of the accepted realities of current system of public administration. But for the persistence and pressure maintained consistently by active public-spirited social workers; the RTI would have been reduced to another provision of little consequence. That transparency should be resisted by universities and school boards is indeed far more distressing than the same coming from government babus. The recent Supreme Court Judgment that evaluated answer scripts of various examinations are covered under the RTE provisions opens new vistas for transparency in this sensitive sector. The judgment procured by an aggrieved mathematics student of the Presidency College of Calcutta University tells the story in all of its dimensions: attitudinal changes are indeed tough to be achieved even in the academic institutions that are supposed to prepare future citizens with strong character traits and value internalisation. On being approached to show the student his answer scripts after evaluation, the university refused to declare that it has decided to keep the answer scripts outside the purview of the RTI Act! The High Court ruled in favour of the applicant but, in its convoluted wisdom, the University decided to move the Supreme Court seeking the relief that the students should not be permitted to see their evaluated answer scripts under any circumstances. Even the much sought-after and pampered Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) which has lost a similar plea before the double bench of the Calcutta High Court also approached the Supreme Court. The issue is: why one of the most prestigious universities in India and the front line School Board are so keen to keep the evaluated answer sheets under wraps!
One could visualise their apprehensions on the counts of both stated and unstated reasons. It would require a more alert and responsive system of examinations which generally suffer from lethargy, rigidity and unconcern. The instances of secrecy being broken in the conduct of major professional and recruitment examinations are legion and this number is increasing. Annual examinations conducted by the School Boards and university examinations are no exception. Teachers are no more keen to take up examination work either at all or even if persuaded or pressurised to accept it, they are often not serious about it as their heart is not in it. There are far more lucrative alternatives like coaching classes, tuitions, membership of visiting committees of experts which bring in far greater dividends than the pittance of honorarium available for invigilation or evaluating answer scripts. Non-teachers are being roped in to invigilate the examination. Often, inexperienced and technically unsuitable persons may be evaluating answer scripts in large number of cases. The systems would not like all of such practices to become public knowledge and, hence, this unprecedented step of going to the highest court of the country against what should be considered a legitimate right of every examinee who appears in a board, university or competitive examination. This is the least that the principle and provision of transparency must offer to every student in a democratic set up in the 21st century.
The Education Commission (1964-66) had made recommendations of far reaching consequences for examination reforms. It pleaded for abolition of external examinations and replacing them by a system of continuous and comprehensive internal evaluation (CCE). In 2009, the MHRD made Class X Board examination optional along with the implementation of CCE. Even after four decades of these recommendations, the system is still not equipped to put these to practice. Millions and millions of children have suffered on account of a pedagogically deficient system of evaluation. It is universally accepted that the best evaluation can be done by the teacher who interacts with the student provided the teacher is fully equipped, educated and trained to remain objective and evaluate in the context. This is the practice followed in most of the reputed and dynamic institutions of higher and professional learning. In 1979, eminent educationist J.P. Naik summarised the situation like this: “Very little practical effect has been given to these recommendations and we continue to rely almost solely on the external examinations in spite of their established unreliability and in spite of the fact that we cannot hold them on time or manage them effectively (as the growing evil of mass copying implies).” The position is far worse today than some thirty years ago. It is these factors of inefficiency, incompetence and lack of commitment that drive the institutions to secrecy, even at the cost of hampering the future prospects of a large number of students practically every year. The argument that the system would collapse if students come to see their answer sheets in large number was rejected by the Court. In the current times, when systems have been developed to make even ‘on-demand examination’ available to the candidates, the argument of unmanageability is simply ridiculous and untenable.
After this judgment, the evaluated answer script is no more a dark secret for the young person confident of incorrect assessment of his answer script in any examination conducted by any agency. The Supreme Court of India has given a great relief to students throughout the country and simultaneously, has communicated a strong message both to the examining agencies and, more particularly, to the examiners. The examining bodies have to design an effective response system to the queries that may now flow under the RTI Act. The examiners can no longer take things easy lest they find themselves in the soup at a later date. The trust-deficit, hopefully, shall get reduced after this judgment.
By JS Rajput
(The author is former Director, NCERT)
Leave Your Comment