An RTI application filed by Advocate and RTI activist Yennam Balachander Reddy from Hyderabad seeking information regarding the NCERT Class 8 Social Science Textbook Part 2 has raised questions over the response provided by the Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE). The applicant filed the RTI request on 25 February 2026 before the CPIO of CBSE seeking detailed information about the Board’s role, if any, in approving, vetting, prescribing, or reviewing textbooks published by the National Council of Educational Research and Training (NCERT) for use in CBSE-affiliated schools. The application also sought copies of communications between CBSE, NCERT, the Ministry of Education, or other authorities relating to the Class 8 Social Science Textbook Part 2 chapter referring to alleged corruption in the judiciary, along with any advisory issued to schools, legal opinions obtained, and records concerning proceedings titled “In Re Social Science Textbook for Grade 8 Part 2 published by NCERT and ancillary issues” pending before the Supreme Court. Additionally, the applicant requested details regarding when CBSE first became aware of the controversy and the names and roles of authors, reviewers, and subject experts involved in the chapter, as available in CBSE records. However, in its reply dated 11 March 2026, CBSE issued a brief response stating, “Reply to Question 1–8: No information is available in this regard.” The applicant has termed the reply cryptic, omnibus, and non-speaking, arguing that it fails to address the queries individually or indicate whether relevant records were examined. Citing provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005 and Supreme Court rulings emphasizing transparency and accountability in public authorities, the applicant has stated that he intends to file a First Appeal before the CBSE First Appellate Authority under Section 19(1) of the RTI Act seeking appropriate directions for disclosure of the requested information.
BRIEF NOTES OF RTI – CBSED/R/E/26/01107
Date: 18.03.2026
BETWEEN:
ADVOCATE YENNAM BALACHANDER REDDY
VS.
CPIO, Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE)
Brief Facts of the RTI:
The applicant is a practising advocate and RTI activist from Hyderabad. The Applicant in good faith had filed the RTI Vide CBSED/R/E/26/01107 Dated 25.02.2026 with CPIO, CBSE Respondent which is related to Information regarding NCERT Class 8 Social Science Textbook Part 2.
The said RTI information sought is reproduced below:
“ Kindly provide the following information under the RTI Act 2005
1. Whether CBSE has any statutory regulatory or administrative role in approving vetting prescribing or reviewing textbooks published by the National Council of Educational Research and Training for use in CBSE affiliated schools. If yes provide certified copies of relevant rules regulations circulars or office orders.
2. Whether CBSE received any written or electronic communication from NCERT Ministry of Education or any other authority regarding the Class 8 Social Science Textbook Part 2 chapter referring to corruption in judiciary. If yes provide certified copies along with dates of receipt
3 Whether CBSE sent any communication to NCERT regarding the said chapter. If yes provide certified copies of letters emails file notings and meeting minutes
4 Whether CBSE issued any advisory circular or direction to affiliated schools regarding use suspension withdrawal or replacement of the said textbook or chapter. If yes provide certified copies.
5 Whether CBSE sought or obtained any legal opinion regarding the said issue. If yes provide certified copy of such legal opinion and related file notings
6 Whether CBSE has received any notice communication or direction in relation to In Re Social Science Textbook for Grade 8 Part 2 published by NCERT and ancillary issues SMW C 1 2026 pending before the Supreme Court of India If yes provide certified copies
7 Provide the date on which CBSE first became aware of the controversy along with certified copy of relevant record or file notings.
8 Provide names designations institutional affiliations and roles of authors reviewers contributors and subject experts of the chapter referring to alleged corruption in judiciary as available in CBSE records If not available state so clearly
If any information is denied specify the exemption clause under Sections 8 9 or 11 of the RTI Act 2005 along with reasons “.
2. That subsequently the said Respondent in reply to the said RTI filed has passed a mechanical, cryptic and non – speaking RTI reply dated 11.03.2026 [Hereinafter referred as Impugned RTI reply] as follows:
“Reply to Question 1-8.
No information is available in this regard.”
3.The applicant has stated that the said reply is omnibus in nature, non-specific and merely a bald statement, without addressing the queries individually or indicating whether the relevant records were searched or examined. Such a generalized response does not satisfy the statutory requirement of providing a clear, reasoned and query-wise reply under the RTI Act.It is submitted that the queries raised involve issues having a clear public nexus and significant public interest, particularly relating to school curriculum, textbook content and institutional communications between national educational bodies.
4. Under Section 3 of the Right to Information Act, 2005, every citizen has the right to access information held by or under the control of public authorities. Further, Section 7(1) mandates that the Public Information Officer must either provide the information or give legally sustainable reasons for denial. A blanket reply stating “no information available” without any explanation, record verification or reference is contrary to the spirit and scheme of the RTI Act.
5. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in CBSE vs. Aditya Bandyopadhyay (2011) 8 SCC 497 held that the RTI Act is enacted to promote transparency and accountability in the functioning of public authorities. Similarly, in Union of India vs. Namit Sharma (2013) 10 SCC 359, the Supreme Court emphasized that transparency and access to information are essential for strengthening democratic governance.
6. In view of the cryptic, omnibus and non-specific RTI reply, the applicant has stated that he intends to file a First Appeal under Section 19(1) of the RTI Act, 2005 before the First Appellate Authority of CBSE, challenging the said impugned RTI reply and seeking appropriate directions for disclosure of the information sought.
7. The applicant has further urged public authorities to ensure that RTI responses are specific, reasoned and in strict compliance with the provisions of the RTI Act, particularly when the information sought concerns matters of public importance and institutional accountability.
*****
Adv. Yennam Balachander Reddy is an Advocate and RTI Activist based in Hyderabad.
Author Bio
