Central Information Commission
Varun Garg vs University Of Delhi on 16 July, 2019
Author: Vanaja N Sarna
Bench: Vanaja N Sarna
क य सच ु ना आयोग
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
बाबा गंगनाथ माग
Baba Gangnath Marg
मु नरका, नई द ल - 110067
Munirka, New Delhi-110067
Decision no.: CIC/UODEL/A/2018/135006/Interim
File no.: CIC/UODEL/A/2018/135006
In the matter of:
Varun Garg
... Appellant
VS
Central Public Information Officer,
University of Delhi Administrative Block,
Delhi-110007
... Respondent
RTI application filed on : 01/11/2017 CPIO replied on : 21/11/2017 First appeal filed on : 15/12/2017 First Appellate Authority order : Not on record Second Appeal dated : 15/05/2018 Date of Hearing : 15/07/2019 Date of Decision : 15/07/2019 The following were present: Appellant: Present in person alongwith Shashi
Respondent: Smt Meenakshi Sahay, Deputy Registrar and CPIO, present in person Information Sought:
The appellant has sought a copy of his evaluated answer sheet bearing Roll No 144731 of May, 2017 examination of paper no: LB 603, Subject: environment law L.LB course final year.
Grounds for Second Appeal The CPIO did not provide the desired information.1
Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing:
The appellant submitted that he is not satisfied with the reply of the CPIO as the CPIO in her reply dated 21.11.2017 had informed the appellant about the process for getting a copy of the evaluated answer script and the requisite fee for getting a copy thereof as per there Notification No. CE/2Oll/193 wherein a charge of Rs 750/- is demanded from any applicant who wants to get a copy of his/her answer sheet. He further submitted that despite the fact that there are numerous Supreme Court judgments and CIC orders regarding this issue of demanding huge fees from the applicants for getting a copy of the evaluated answer script, the respondent authority by demanding an exorbitant fee has violated the principles laid down by such higher authorities and in such a case, maximum penalty u/s 20 of the RTI Act may be levied on the concerned CPIO and also the appellant may be adequately compensated for mental agony and harassment caused to him.
To substantiate his contentions, he cited a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CBSE Vs Aditya Bandhopadyay & Ors, Civil Appeal No. 6454/2011. The relevant para is reproduced below:
"Section 22 of RTI Act provides that the provisions of the said Act will have effect, notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law for the time being in force. Therefore the provisions of the RTI Act will prevail over the provisions of the bye-laws/rules of the examining bodies in regard to examinations. As a result, unless the examining body is able to demonstrate that the answer-books fall under the exempted category of information described in clause (e) of section 8(1) of RTI Act, the examining body will be bound to provide access to an examinee to inspect and take copies of his evaluated answer-books, even if such inspection or taking copies is barred under the rules/bye-laws of the examining body governing the examinations."
He also referred to the case Kumar Shanu & Anr Vs YSK Seshu Kumar, Chairman CBSE, Contempt Petition No. 9837/2016, wherein the following observations were made, "we dispose of this contempt petition by directing that the Central Board of Secondary Education(for short, 'the CBSE') shall scrupulously observe the directions of this Court in Civil Appeal No. 6454 of 2011 and the Rules framed under the Right to Information Act, 2005."2
File no.: CIC/UODEL/A/2018/135006 He further quoted the order passed by this Commission in File No. CIC/SA/C/2015/90116 dated 15.01.2016 wherein the following observations were made, "20.Similarly, as stated above access has to be given to students' answer scripts after declaration of results. Instead, the Delhi University is prescribing a time limit that until 60 days are exhausted, he cannot apply and after 75th day also he will be disqualified to seek copy of answer sheet. As per RTI Act and judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court, after declaration of Results, the students are entitled to access the answer sheets also without any further limits. The only requirement is answer books should have been held by public authority. A student examinee cannot ask for a copy after the answer book was removed according to their record retention policy. Hence, imposing time limits such as, denying the RTI applications until 60 days after and beyond 75 days after declaration of results is also denial of RTI as they conflict with RTI Act.
31. Commission finds merit in contention of the student appellant that prescribing unreasonable cost and time constraint will in fact amount to complete denial of information to the students on grounds of their economic status, which is in violation of Article 14, 15 and 16 of the Constitution of India. No citizen shall be discriminated on the basis of his access to resources or any criteria including poverty as per his fundamental report to equality. It is very sad that educational institution like university is not mindful of the basic fact and they are going on denying information to the students, by imposing high cost, which means if you cannot afford, you cannot access. Thus, charging of Rs 750 per answer sheet will amount to breach of sections 3, 6 and 7 of the RTI Act.
Further, he reproduced the observation made by the Commission in File No. CIC/UODEL/A/2017/603074-BJ dated 18.06.2018 which is reproduced as under:
"Moreover, contention of the respondent that allowing inspection of answer sheet would cause hardship to the public authority in terms of maintaining two parallel systems for providing information, holds no merit in view of the fact that timely access to information is the essence of the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 and denial of information on such grounds 3 could prejudice a student's future career prospects and right to his/her livelihood."
The CPIO submitted that after receipt of the relevant input from the Dean Examination/OSD Examination/ Assistant Controller of Examinations (Revaluation), an appropriate reply had been provided to the appellant on 21.11.2017. She further submitted that as per the Notification No. CE/2011/193 dated 1st November 2011 and duly approved by E.C vide Resolution No. 08(3) dated 03/05/2012, the appellant was advised to pay the requisite fee to get a copy of his evaluated answer sheet. She also stated that since the similar issue involving the matter of charging fees on answer scripts was pending decision before the Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Institute of Companies Secretaries of India Vs. Paras Jain C.A. No. 5665 of 2014, during its pendency, the concerned Section while following their existing rules directed the appellant to pay the relevant fees of Rs 750/- for getting the desired information.
She also stated that after receipt of the hearing notice from the Commission, the matter was once again examined and it was submitted that the desired information i.e. copy of the evaluated answer sheet of the appellant has not been weeded out so far and is still available with the examination Section and if the appellant so desires, he can get a copy of the same from the concerned section.
At this point, the appellant submitted that he does not want the desired information after such a long delay as its purpose has been defeated. She further submitted that since the matter of ICSI Vs Paras Jain has attained finality in the Apex Court, they are now following the principle laid down in the matter and are providing copies of answer sheets as per the Rules framed under the RTI Act. She also relied on various orders passed by the Commission where the procedure adopted by the University for providing answer script to the students was upheld. Some of such decisions are mentioned as under:
CIC/RM/A/2012000573 dated 02.05.2013.
CIC/DS/A/2012/000619/RM dated 26.04.2013.
CIC/RM/A/2012/000676 dated 14.05.2013.
CIC/RM/A/2012/000470/LS dated 10.05.2013.
CIC/RM/A/2012/000013/LS dated 13.05.2013.
CIC/RM/A/2012/000543/LS dated 24.06.2013.
CIC/RM/A/2014/004525/MP dated 22.05.2017.4
File no.: CIC/UODEL/A/2018/135006 Observations:
From a perusal of the relevant case records, it is noted that the right of candidate to access his own answer sheet by paying reasonable fee for his/her copy has been discussed in a plethora of cases wherein the Commission had upheld the right of students/candidates to access his/her own answer sheet by paying a charge of Rs 2/- per page under the RTI Act and has directed all the Universities/institutions to follow the RTI Act in relation to fee structure for providing the information. After the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision dated 09.08.2011 in the case of CBSE vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay (Civil Appeal No. 6454 of 2011), specifically directing the Board to allow the examinee to inspect his answer books and having regard to the fact that the appellant had filed the RTI application seeking a copy of his evaluated answer script at the time when it was validly held by the public authority, the CPIO has flouted the Apex Court's decision which had attained finality and was binding on the University as well, without any reasonable justification and the plea of the CPIO that another similar matter was pending before the same Court cannot be sustained. The relevant para of the judgment has been already quoted by the appellant in the preceding paras.
Moreover in a recent matter before the Apex Court in Kumar Shanu and Anr. vs CBSE in Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 1255/2018 in Civil Appeal No. 6454/2011 dated 29.10.2018, the CBSE in its affidavit dated 24.10.2018 had stated that "for furnishing photocopies of the answer sheets fee as per the provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005 and Rules is being charged whereas if re-verification/ re-valuation/ re-totalling/ re-checking of the answer sheets/ scripts alongwith the photocopies thereof is sought fee as per the CBSE Regulations is charged."
The Commission also notes the fact that the Delhi University has its separate set of Rules under RTI Act which does not seem to be followed in this case. In its own Manual No. 17, as per Section 4(1)(b)(xvii) on page 26, it is stated:
"For providing the information under sub-section (1) of section 7, the fee shall be charged by way of cash against proper receipt or by demand draft or bankers cheque or Indian Postal Order payable to the Registrar, University of Delhi at the following rates:-5
(a) rupees two for each page (in A4 or A3 size paper) created or copied;
(b) actual charges or cost price of a copy in larger size paper;
(c) actual cost or price for samples or models; and
(d) for inspection of records, no fee for the first hour; and a fee of rupees five for each subsequent hour (or fraction thereof.)........"
The above Rules of the University are in conformity with the RTI(Regulation of Fee and Cost)Rules, 2005, but the respondent authority in the instant case has not applied these Rules. It appears that there is no definite Rule followed by them as in some cases they follow RTI rules by charging Rs 2 per page for providing a copy of answer sheets and in some cases they charge an amount of Rs 750/- per answer book from a student.
At his point, the Commission quotes verbatim the observation made by a coordinate Bench in the matter of Abne Ingty Vs University Of Delhi, File No. CIC/SA/C/2015/11056 dated 15.01.2016, wherein it has been held:
18. Imposing time and cost constraints over and above the norms prescribed by RTI Act and Rules and charging Rs 750 per paper, which far more than Rs 2 for copy per page (as prescribed) will impose economic burden on a student. It is an additional burden on student, who has already paid an examination fee to the University, which sufficiently must have been calculated to meet the expenditure to conduct examination including the cost of evaluation. This is a huge amount over and above the fee collected, for recounting and re−evaluation. After paying tuition fee, admission fee, examination fee, the student is asked to pay Rs 3750 for copies of answer scripts in five papers. It is not end of the problem. He has to pay Rs 300 per paper for re−checking and Rs 500 per paper for re−evaluation. As per RTI Act this Commission has no power to interfere with the general fee structure of the University, but RTI Act has given power and authority to the Commission to prevent denial of access to his own answer sheet by public authority through this way of imposing unreasonable cost and time constraints. Charging so high a fee/cost will not only deny the accessibility, but also immunize the public authority from being accountable to students. The resultant situation is: If a student cannot pay Rs 750, the Delhi University will become not accountable for its evaluation! This is against objective and scheme of RTI Act.
19. Evaluated answer−book is 'information' as defined under RTI Act and as explained by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. In a petition under RTI, 6 File no.: CIC/UODEL/A/2018/135006 the students can seek only for a certified copy of their own answer sheet, but cannot demand re−evaluation etc, for which one has to necessarily approach university authorities, pay fee whatever prescribed and follow the prescribed procedure. University need not give access to answer sheets before declaration of results.
It is also brought to the notice of the CPIO that the issue of charging fees on answer scripts had been settled way before and time and again it has been laid down that when an applicant seeks a copy of his answer sheet under the provisions of the RTI Act, the concerned authority has to follow the Rules made thereunder and charge accordingly. The Commission on this point also relies on a recent observation made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of ISCI Vs Paras Jain, C.A. No. 5665/2014, dated 11.04.2019 which is relied by the CPIO herself. The relevant para is extracted below:
"Be that as it may, Guideline No. 3 of the Appellant does not take away from Rule 4, The Right to Information (Regulation of Fees and Cost) Rules, 2005 which also entitles the candidates to seek inspection and certified copies of their answer scripts. In our opinion, the existence of these two avenues is not mutually exclusive and it is up to the candidate to choose either of the routes. Thus, if a candidate seeks information under the provisions of the Right to Information, then payment has to be sought under the Rules therein, however, if the information is sought under the Guidelines of the Appellant, then the Appellant is at liberty to charge the candidates as per its guidelines."
With regard to the Orders of the Commission which have been referred to by the CPIO during the hearing, it is noted in most of these cases, the appellant has remained absent and hence the order was passed based on the submissions of the respondent only and secondly, the desired information had been already provided to the appellant and hence the facts in those cases and the present case are totally different and cannot be applied in this matter.
Interim Decision:
In view of the above observations and the judicial dicta passed in various judgments as mentioned, the Commission agrees with the contention of the appellant that the CPIO has not only flouted the provisions of the RTI Act but 7 has also disregarded the various judgements of the Hon'ble Apex Court and also of the Commission. The Commission accordingly directs the CPIO & the then deemed PIO who had replied to the above mentioned RTI application to show cause why maximum penalty should not be imposed against them for demanding unreasonably high charges for the copy of the answer-sheet in breach of the RTI Rules and also Delhi University Manual which does not allow him to charge more than Rs 2 per page. The Commission directs the CPIO & the then deemed PIO to appear before the bench on 25.07.2019 at 01.45 pm to show cause as to why action should not be initiated against her under Section 20(1) and (2) of the RTI Act. The CPIO is also directed to send a copy of all supporting documents upon which she chooses to rely during the hearing. The said documents be sent to the Commission atleast two days prior to the hearing via link-paper. The CPIO shall serve a copy of this order on the deemed PIOs to direct their presence before the bench as well.
The case is accordingly adjourned.
Vanaja N. Sarna (वनजा एन. सरना)
Information Commissioner (सच
ू ना आयु त)
Authenticated true copy
(अ भ मा णत स या पत त)
A.K. Assija (ऐ.के. असीजा)
Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक)
011- 26182594 /
दनांक / Date
8