Central Information Commission
Ravi Hegde vs National Institute Of Mental Health & ... on 16 March, 2018
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place,
New Delhi-110066
FILE Nos. (30)
CIC/NIMNS/C/2017/179994 CIC/NIMNS/C/2017/180012
CIC/NIMNS/C/2017/179996 CIC/NIMNS/C/2017/180013
CIC/NIMNS/C/2017/179997 CIC/NIMNS/C/2017/181870
CIC/NIMNS/C/2017/179998 CIC/NIMNS/C/2017/181871
CIC/NIMNS/C/2017/179999 CIC/NIMNS/C/2017/181872
CIC/NIMNS/C/2017/180001 CIC/NIMNS/C/2017/181873
CIC/NIMNS/C/2017/180002 CIC/NIMNS/C/2017/181874
CIC/NIMNS/C/2017/180003 CIC/NIMNS/C/2017/181882
CIC/NIMNS/C/2017/180004 CIC/NIMNS/C/2017/181884
CIC/NIMNS/C/2017/180005 CIC/NIMNS/C/2017/181886
CIC/NIMNS/C/2017/180006 CIC/NIMNS/C/2017/181887
CIC/NIMNS/C/2017/180007 CIC/NIMNS/C/2017/181890
CIC/NIMNS/C/2017/180008 CIC/NIMNS/C/2017/181894
CIC/NIMNS/C/2017/180009 CIC/NIMNS/C/2017/181895
CIC/NIMNS/C/2017/180010 CIC/NIMNS/C/2017/181998
Date of Hearing : 27.02.2018
Date of Decision : 15.03.2018
Appellant/Complainant : Mr. Ravi Hegde
Respondent : PIO/National Institute of Mental
Health & Neuro Science-
(NIMHANS),
Through: Dr. Chittaranjan Andrade
- PIO; Dr. Shekhar- FAA/Registrar
Information Commissioner : Shri Yashovardhan Azad
Case No. RTI filed on CPIO reply First appeal FAO
179994 11.10.2017 - - - - - -
179996 10.10.2017 - - - - - -
179997 09.10.2017 - - - - - -
179998 08.10.2017 - - - - - -
179999 12.10.2017 - - - - - -
Page 1 of 20
180001 07.10.2017 - - - - - -
180002 15.10.2017 - - - - - -
180003 06.10.2017 - - - - - -
180004 14.10.2017 - - - - - -
180005 05.10.2017 - - - - - -
180006 13.10.2017 - - - - - -
180007 18.10.2017 - - - - - -
180008 04.10.2017 - - - - - -
180009 03.10.2017 - - - - - -
180010 17.10.2017 - - - - - -
180012 16.10.2017 - - - - - -
180013 19.10.2017 - - - - - -
181870 28.10.2017 - - - - - -
181871 29.10.2017 - - - - -
181872 30.10.2017 -
181873 31.10.2017 - - -
181874 31.10.2017 - - -
181882 26.10.2017 - - -
181884 25.10.2017 - - -
181886 24.10.2017 - - -
181887 23.10.2017 - - -
181890 22.10.2017 - - -
181894 21.10.2017 - - -
181895 20.10.2017 - - -
181998 27.10.2017 - - -
Since the parties in all of the above cases are common, the matters are
clubbed for the purpose of effective adjudication
Information soughtand background of the case:
CIC/NIMNS/C/2017/179994 Vide RTI application dated 11.10.2017, addressed to the National Institute of Mental Health & Neuro Sciences-(NIMHANS), the complainant sought information regarding the daily attendance and travels made by the Principal Investigator (Dr. Chittaranajan Andrade) of the Department of Biotechnology (DBT), New Delhi funded research project "Electroconvulsive Seizure-induced Neuroplasticity changes in the Rat Brain" at NIMHANS, provide the following information:-
"Certified copy of the daily attendance register abstract of the PI for all the months (entire month abstract is needed, not just the date of travel) Page 2 of 20 during which he has made the travels under the DBT funded project travel grants."
Having not received any response from the CPIO, the complainant filed complaint dated 14.11.2017. Feeling aggrieved with no response received from the CPIO, the complainant directly approached the Commission.
CIC/NIMNS/C/2017/179996 Vide RTI application dated 11.10.2017, addressed to the National Institute of Mental Health & Neuro Sciences-(NIMHANS), the complainant sought information regarding the Department of Biotechnology (DBT), New Delhi funded research project "Electroconvulsive Seizure-induced Neuroplasticity changes in the Rat Brain" carried out at NIMHANS having Dr. Chittaranjan Andrade as Principal Investigator and Dr. B. K. Chandrasekhar Sagar as Co- Investigator, he sought information on eight points:-
1. Total Travel Grants sanctioned under the project.
2. Duration (date, month, year details) of the Travel Grants.
3. Total Amount Utilized for travels.
4. Dates of Travels made, Mode of Travel, Travel details (starting place of destination-mention clearly the lab, institute or university details where the visits were made).
5. Expenditure incurred for each travel. Provide certified copies of the tickets, bills, vouchers or receipts etc.....
Having not received any response with the CPIO, the complainant filed complaint dated 14.11.2017. Feeling aggrieved with no response received from the CPIO, the complainant directly approached the Commission.
CIC/NIMNS/C/2017/179997 Vide RTI application dated 09.10.2017, addressed to the National Institute of Mental Health & Neuro Sciences-(NIMHANS), the complainant sought information regarding the PhD Course in Psychopharmacology of Ravi Prabhakar Hegde at NIMHANS, he sought information on two points:-
1. Certified copy of the E-mail dated July 20, 2016 with subject line "Re:
Revised PhD thesis submission" sent from Dr. Chittaranjan Andrade to Ravi Prabhakar Hegde in which it is mentioned that "One of your guides has resigned because he was also concerned about your data".Page 3 of 20
2. Certified copy of the Resignation Letter submitted by Dr. Sumantra Chattarji Professor of NCBS to NIMHANS.
Having not received any response with the CPIO, the complainant filed complaint dated 14.11.2017. Feeling aggrieved with no response received from the CPIO, the complainant directly approached the Commission.
CIC/NIMNS/C/2017/179998 CIC/NIMNS/C/2017/180001 CIC/NIMNS/C/2017/180003 Vide RTI applications dated 06.10.2017, 07.10.2017 and 08.10.2017, addressed to the National Institute of Mental Health & Neuro Sciences- (NIMHANS), the complainant sought information regarding the research, adademic and any other collaborations of Dr. Chittaranjan Andrade, Bangalore with Dr. Nilesh Shah, Mumbai, Dr. Sudha Suresh, Bangalore, and Dr. Satyanarayan Rao, T.S., Mysore, provide the following information in certified form:-
"Number of on-going research projects (both funded and unfunded)/collaborative research works/studies. Provide complete details about title of projects/research works/studies, funding source (for funded projects), names of PI and other investigators involved, status of the project, etc."
Having not received any response with the CPIO, the complainant filed complaint dated 14.11.2017. Feeling aggrieved with no response received from the CPIO, the complainant directly approached the Commission.
CIC/NIMNS/C/2017/179999 Vide RTI application dated 12.10.2017, addressed to the National Institute of Mental Health & Neuro Sciences-(NIMHANS), the complainant sought information regarding the supervision/guiding (as main guide/joiner guide/co- guide/supervisor or in any other such related capacity) for PhD programmes in NIMHANS and other institutes/universities/colleges in India by Dr. Chittaranjan Andrade, he sought information in certified form on six points:-
1. Number of PhD students guided till date.
2. Name of PhD students guided and institute details.
3. Title of the PhD thesis and thesis submission year details.Page 4 of 20
4. Total duration taken by each PhD students for completion of thesis work.
5. Number of successful PhD thesis. Provide complete details.
6. Number of unsuccessful PhD thesis. Provide complete details.
Having not received any response with the CPIO, the complainant filed complaint dated 14.11.2017. Feeling aggrieved with no response received from the CPIO, the complainant directly approached the Commission.
CIC/NIMNS/C/2017/180002 Vide RTI application dated 15.10.2017, addressed to the National Institute of Mental Health & Neuro Sciences-(NIMHANS), the complainant sought information regarding the animal experiments conducted by Dr. Chittaranjan Andrade, provide the following information/documents in certified form on seven points:-
1.& 2. Titles and copies of the IAEC approval documents related to the Animal Experiment Proposals/Projects submitted to and approved by the NIMHANS Animal Ethics Committee from 2005 to till date in which the Investigator(s) have claimed that after the experiments the animals will be rehabilitated.
3.& 4.Number and type of animals rehabilitated in each of the Animal Experiments conducted during the period 2005 to till date and duration (from-to-dates) of rehabilitation in each of the Animal Experiment projects in which it is claimed that after the experiments the animals will be rehabilitated.
5. & 6. Date and reasons for death of the animals rehabilitated in each of the Animal Experiments conducted during the period 2005 to till date. And certified copies of the Form-C for each of the Animal Experiment Projects conducted during the period 2005 to till date.
7. Certified copies of the project completion reports submitted to CARF/IAEC by the Investigator(s) related to the Animal Experiments conducted during the period 2005 to till date.
Having not received any response with the CPIO, the complainant filed complaint dated 20.11.2017. Feeling aggrieved with no response received from the CPIO, the complainant directly approached the Commission.
Page 5 of 20CIC/NIMNS/C/2017/180004 Vide RTI application dated 14.10.2017, addressed to the National Institute of Mental Health & Neuro Sciences-(NIMHANS), the complainant sought information regarding the animal experiments conducted by Dr. Chittaranjan Andrade, provide the following information/documents in certified form on thirteen points:-
1. & 2. Titles of the Animal Experiment Proposals/Projects submitted to/approved by NIMHANS Animal Ethics Committee for approval from 2005 till date.
3. & 4. Funding source for each of the Animal Experiments conducted during the period 2005 to till date. And names of the Officials, investigators, project staff, students, technicians or assistants involved in the execution of the Animal Experiments conducted during the period 2005 to till date. Provide certified copies of the project execution staff appointing details submitted to CARF, NIMHANS for each of the projects.
5. & 6. Date of initiation and date of completion of each of the Animal Experiment Projects.
7. & 8. Attendance register abstract (for the complete duration of each of the projects) of project execution staff involved in each of the Animal Experiment projects conducted during the period 2005 to till date. And Number and type of animals sanctioned for each Animal Experiments conducted during the period 2005 till date etc.......
Having not received any response with the CPIO, the complainant filed complaint dated 20.11.2017. Feeling aggrieved with no response received from the CPIO, the complainant directly approached the Commission.
CIC/NIMNS/C/2017/180005 Vide RTI application dated 14.10.2017, addressed to the National Institute of Mental Health & Neuro Sciences-(NIMHANS), the complainant sought information regarding the long standing PhD case of Ravi Prabhakar Hegde, provide the following information/documents/ records in certified form on six points:-
1. Any correspondences (in any form) made by the Dean/ Dean and Controller of Examinations, NIMHANS which is received by Dr. Chittaranjan Andrade.Page 6 of 20
2. Any correspondence (in any form) made by any higher authorities of NIMHANS which is received by Dr. Chittaranjan Andrade.
3. Any correspondence (in any form) made by the Director, NIMHANS which is received by Dr. Chittaranjan Andrade.
4. Any Memo, Orders, Instructions issued or any Explanations sought by any authorities of NIMHANS from Dr. Chittaranjan Andrade.
5. Any Action Taken/Enquiry initiated by any authorities of NIMHANS against Dr. Chittaranjan Andrade in connection with the above referred case.
6. Any information (in any form) related to the meetings held with any authorities of NIMHANS in connection with the above referred case. Provide the complete details including minutes of the meetings.
Having not received any response with the CPIO, the complainant filed complaint dated 14.11.2017. Feeling aggrieved with no response received from the CPIO, the complainant directly approached the Commission.
CIC/NIMNS/C/2017/180006 Vide RTI application dated 13.10.2017, addressed to the National Institute of Mental Health & Neuro Sciences-(NIMHANS), the complainant sought information regarding the guidance (by Dr. Dr. Chittaranjan Andrade for PhD thesis of Ms. J.S. Smitha, Department of Anatomy, St John's Medical College, Bangalore, provide the following information/documents/ records in certified form on six points:-
1. Title of the PhD thesis.
2. Details about other guides involved in the PhD thesis.
3. Date of giving consent to become guide (co-guide/joint-guide).
4. Duration of guiding the PhD thesis (from-to, dates).
5. Abstract of PhD thesis.
6. Reprints of research papers published out of the PhD thesis work.
Having not received any response with the CPIO, the complainant filed complaint dated 20.11.2017. Feeling aggrieved with no response received from the CPIO, the complainant directly approached the Commission.
CIC/NIMNS/C/2017/180007 Vide RTI application dated 18.10.2017, addressed to the National Institute of Mental Health & Neuro Sciences-(NIMHANS), the complainant sought Page 7 of 20 information regarding the examiner/reviewer reports pertaining to the PhD thesis evaluation (both pre-revised and revised submissions) of Ravi Prabhakar Hegde, provide the following information/documents/ records in certified form on four points:-
1. & 2. Certified copies of the examiner/reviewer reports pertaining to pre-revised/revised thesis.
3.&4.Certified copies of the cover letters/any other documents/instructions decisions sent to the main guide by the Dean and Controller of Examinations while sending the examiner/review reports pertaining to the pre-revised/revised thesis.
Having not received any response with the CPIO, the complainant filed complaint dated 20.11.2017. Feeling aggrieved with no response received from the CPIO, the complainant directly approached the Commission.
CIC/NIMNS/C/2017/180008 Vide RTI application dated 04.10.2017, addressed to the National Institute of Mental Health & Neuro Sciences-(NIMHANS), the complainant sought information regarding the Department of Biotechnology (DBT), New Delhi funded project titled "Electroconvulsive Seizure-Induced Neuroplasticity Changes in the Rat Bran" (having Dr. Chittaranjan Andrade as PI and Dr. B.K. Chandrasekhar Sagar as Co-PI), provide the following documents in certified form on three points:-
1. Copy of the final progress report/project completion report (complete set) submitted to the Department of Biotechnology (DBT), New Delhi by the Project Investigators of the above referred DBT project.
2. Copies of all correspondences (including e-mails) received by the Principal Investigator or Co-Investigator from the Department of Biotechnology (DBT), New Delhi after submission of the final progress report/project completion report.
3. Copies of any correspondences (including e-mails) made by the Principal Investigator or Co-Investigator to the Department of Biotechnology (DBT), New Delhi after submission of the final progress report/project completion report.
Having not received any response with the CPIO, the complainant filed complaint dated 14.11.2017. Feeling aggrieved with no response received from the CPIO, the complainant directly approached the Commission.
Page 8 of 20CIC/NIMNS/C/2017/180009 Vide RTI application dated 03.10.2017, addressed to the National Institute of Mental Health & Neuro Sciences-(NIMHANS), the complainant sought information on three points:-
1. & 2. Certified copy (complete set) of the By-Law of NIMHANS Course in Basic Science which is applicable for the PhD degree for the 2009 batch and for the current academic year.
3. Certified copy (complete set) of the amendments made (if any) to the By-Law of NIMHANS PhD Course in Basic Science from the year 2009 to till date.
Having not received any response with the CPIO, the complainant filed complaint dated 14.11.2017. Feeling aggrieved with no response received from the CPIO, the complainant directly approached the Commission.
CIC/NIMNS/C/2017/180010 Vide RTI application dated 17.10.2017, addressed to the National Institute of Mental Health & Neuro Sciences-(NIMHANS), the complainant sought information regarding the Animal Experiments Projects, Proposals (submitted/approved between 2005 to till date)of Dr. Chittaranjan Andrade, Department of Psychopharmacology, NIMHANS, provide the following information/documents in certified form on six points:-
1. Number of Animal Experiment Projects/Proposals (both funded and unfunded) submitted/presented (prior to submitting to IAEC) in the Department Meeting for Approval.
2. Dates of the Department Meetings held which considered the Animal Experiment Projects/Proposals (both funded and unfunded) submitted/presented for approval.
3. Name, designation and complete postal address of the Members present in each of the Department Meetings in which the Animal Experiment Projects/Proposals (both funded and unfunded) submitted/presented for approval.
4. Certified copies of the Animal Experiment Projects/Proposals (both funded and unfunded) submitted/presented for approval in the Department Meeting etc....
Having not received any response with the CPIO, the complainant filed complaint dated 20.11.2017. Feeling aggrieved with no response received from the CPIO, the complainant directly approached the Commission.
Page 9 of 20CIC/NIMNS/C/2017/180012 Vide RTI application dated 16.10.2017, addressed to the National Institute of Mental Health & Neuro Sciences-(NIMHANS), the complainant sought information regarding the trainee student's or dissertation/project work or any other related academic/research work purpose visit (from 2005 to till date) of students from other institutes, colleges, universities and academic institutes to the lab of Dr. Chittaranjan Andrade, NIMHANS, provide the following information/documents in certified form on nine points:-
1.& 2. Name of the visiting students/trainee students who visited lab from 2005 to till date. And name of the parent institute/college/university of the visited student. Provide complete details of Department/Branch/Discipline and correspondence address of the student‟s parent institute/college.
3.& 4.Purpose of visit of each of the student/trainee. And duration of visit (provide complete details about date, month and year to visit.
5. & 6. Title of the project/dissertation/research study conducted by each of the visiting student/trainee. And attendance register abstract of each of the student/trainee for their visiting period, etc......
Having not received any response with the CPIO, the complainant filed complaint dated 20.11.2017. Feeling aggrieved with no response received from the CPIO, the complainant directly approached the Commission.
CIC/NIMNS/C/2017/180013 Vide RTI application dated 19.10.2017, addressed to the National Institute of Mental Health & Neuro Sciences-(NIMHANS), the complainant sought information regarding the PhD thesis experiment data and results of Ravi Prabhakar Hegde, provide the following information/documents/records in certified form on four points:-
1. Any correspondence made by the PhD main guide by any means (i.e. e-
mails, postal correspondence, telephone calls, etc) by sending the raw data, or results or any part of it or any information pertaining to it to any other persons. Provide complete details.
2. If yes (i.e. correspondence is made with others by sending data/results/part of it), provide the certified copies/records of the communication made by the PhD main guide to the student (i.e. to Ravi Prabhakar Hegde) to seek his permission to send his PhD data or results or any part of it to others, etc......
Page 10 of 20Having not received any response with the CPIO, the complainant filed complaint dated 20.11.2017. Feeling aggrieved with no response received from the CPIO, the complainant directly approached the Commission.
CIC/NIMNS/C/2017/181870 CIC/NIMNS/C/2017/181895 Vide RTI applications dated 20.10.2017 and 28.10.2017, addressed to the National Institute of Mental Health & Neuro Sciences-(NIMHANS), the complainant sought information regarding the complete details of all correspondence made by him with the NIMHANS authorities with respect of his long standing PhD case.
Having not received any response with the CPIO, the complainant filed complaints dated 20.11.2017 and 27.11.2017. Feeling aggrieved with no response received from the CPIO, the complainant directly approached the Commission.
CIC/NIMNS/C/2017/181871 Vide RTI application dated 28.10.2017, addressed to the National Institute of Mental Health & Neuro Sciences-(NIMHANS), the complainant sought information regarding the certified photocopies and communications made by him with the NIMHANS authorities with respect of his Formal Complaint titled "Formal Complaint regarding his PhD case and harassment, mental torture and humiliation by the PhD guide at NIMHANS.
Having not received any response with the CPIO, the complainant filed complaint dated 29.11.2017. Feeling aggrieved with no response received from the CPIO, the complainant directly approached the Commission.
CIC/NIMNS/C/2017/181872 Vide RTI application dated 30.10.2017, addressed to the National Institute of Mental Health & Neuro Sciences-(NIMHANS), the complainant sought information regarding the Office of the Dean and Controller of Examination with the NIMHANS authorities. He seeking information about the pre-revised and revised PhD thesis examiner reports, dates of communication, names of the Deans and Controller of Examination, etc...
Page 11 of 20Having not received any response with the CPIO, the complainant filed complaint dated 29.11.2017. Feeling aggrieved with no response received from the CPIO, the complainant directly approached the Commission.
CIC/NIMNS/C/2017/181873 Vide RTI application dated 31.10.2017, addressed to the National Institute of Mental Health & Neuro Sciences-(NIMHANS), the complainant sought information regarding the Dr. Chittaranjan Andrade, Dean-Basic Science and CPIO with the NIMHANS authorities. He seeking information about the Department of Biotechnology (DBT), New Delhi funded project titled "Electroconvulsive Seizure-Induced Neuroplasticity Changes in the Rat Brain", date and venue, name of the project investigator, soft copies etc...
Having not received any response with the CPIO, the complainant filed complaint dated 29.11.2017. Feeling aggrieved with no response received from the CPIO, the complainant directly approached the Commission.
CIC/NIMNS/C/2017/181874 Vide RTI application dated 31.10.2017, addressed to the National Institute of Mental Health & Neuro Sciences-(NIMHANS), the complainant sought information regarding the investigation dated 29.06.2017 submitted to the Director, NIMHANS by Prabhakar Ishwar Hegde, "Chandrabhaga". He sought information about the name, designation, office notes, records, documents, minutes of meeting etc...
Having not received any response with the CPIO, the complainant filed complaint dated 29.11.2017. Feeling aggrieved with no response received from the CPIO, the complainant directly approached the Commission.
CIC/NIMNS/C/2017/181882 CIC/NIMNS/C/2017/181884 Vide RTI applications dated 25.10.2017 and 26.10.2017, addressed to the National Institute of Mental Health & Neuro Sciences-(NIMHANS), the complainant sought information regarding the submission of ICMR SRF (of Ravi Hegde) related documents (response to experts comments) to ICMR Page 12 of 20 through proper channel the relevant requests made to the Director, NIMHANS on December 6, 2016, and signature of the guides on the ICMR SRF.
Having not received any response with the CPIO, the complainant filed complaint dated 29.11.2017. Feeling aggrieved with no response received from the CPIO, the complainant directly approached the Commission.
CIC/NIMNS/C/2017/181886 CIC/NIMNS/C/2017/181887 Vide RTI applications dated 23.10.2017 and 24.10.2017, addressed to the National Institute of Mental Health & Neuro Sciences-(NIMHANS), the complainant sought information regarding the submission of response to the experts, comments on the final progress report of ICMR SRF of Ravi Hegde.
Having not received any response with the CPIO, the complainant filed complaint dated 27.11.2017. Feeling aggrieved with no response received from the CPIO, the complainant directly approached the Commission.
CIC/NIMNS/C/2017/181890 Vide RTI application dated 22.10.2017, addressed to the National Institute of Mental Health & Neuro Sciences-(NIMHANS), the complainant sought information regarding the his long standing PhD case and meeting of the Deans of NIMHANS held on December 30, 2016 related to the case.
Having not received any response with the CPIO, the complainant filed complaint dated 27.11.2017. Feeling aggrieved with no response received from the CPIO, the complainant directly approached the Commission.
CIC/NIMNS/C/2017/181894 Vide RTI application dated 21.10.2017, addressed to the National Institute of Mental Health & Neuro Sciences-(NIMHANS), the complainant sought information regarding the his long standing PhD case in the NIMHANS Academic Committee meeting held on October 21, 2017.
Having not received any response with the CPIO, the complainant filed complaint dated 27.11.2017. Feeling aggrieved with no response received from the CPIO, the complainant directly approached the Commission.
Page 13 of 20CIC/NIMNS/C/2017/181998 Vide RTI application dated 27.10.2017, addressed to the National Institute of Mental Health & Neuro Sciences-(NIMHANS), the complainant sought information regarding the certified photocopies and communications made by him with the NIMHANS authorities with respect of his Formal Complaint dated 18.09.2017 with the Director, NIMHANS regarding his long standing PhD case.
Having not received any response with the CPIO, the complainant filed complaint dated 29.11.2017. Feeling aggrieved with no response received from the CPIO, the complainant directly approached the Commission.
Relevant facts emerging during hearing:
Both parties are present and make detailed submissions with respect to the aforementioned batch of thirty appeals.
The complainant stated that he was a basic science researcher and a Ph D Student at NIMHANS since 2015, who worked for six years under Dr. Chittaranjan Andrade, Dean-Basic Science and CPIO with the NIMHANS authorities. It is the complainant's case that he was harassed and tortured by his guide soon after submission of his thesis. Mr. Hegde has further contended that even when he complained about the ill treatment meted out to him, the authorities concerned at NIMHANS failed to take any action to remedy his problem for a period of three years. Hence the complainant was compelled to seek information from the NIMHANS and resorted to filing of RTI applications none of which were responded appropriately, accurately or even within the mandated period of time. In fact the complainant states that though response was delayed beyond the mandated time in each case, in many cases, the PIO sought for deposit of fees, while such delayed information should have been provided to him free of cost.
The complainant further contends that he was denied justice even when he filed the First Appeals and only ten (10) out of his thirty (30) First appeals were heard and decided. However no notice of hearing was sent to the applicant/complainant nor was he granted the opportunity of participating in the hearing of the First Appeals. The complainant added that he has prepared twenty six (26) more complaints, which await filing, being aggrieved by non hearing and non disposal of his twenty first appeals by the appellate authority.Page 14 of 20
The FAA responded on behalf of the Respondent since the applicant's focal grievances were directed against the PIO-Dr. Chittaranjan. The FAA began his averments with the background of the case narrating that the applicant Mr Hegde was a student of Dr Chittaranjan Andrade, during year 2009-2015. After he submitted his thesis and his three guides had an opportunity to peruse his submission, research fraud was suspected. Suspicions about the data were also discreetly stated by one of the examiners of the thesis. Both of the examiners of the thesis failed the student. These examiners had been independently selected by the Director of NIMHANS, without reference to Dr. Andrade. The Respondent further stated that since one of the examiners suggested that Mr Hegde may be given a chance to resubmit his thesis, he was asked to improve his thesis and resubmit it. However, one of the conditions of resubmission was an inspection of the data, to which Mr Hedge did not oblige. Realizing that this must be a tacit admission of guilt, the external thesis guide (from NCBS) resigned. Respondent vide written submission further averred as follows:
".....The Director appointed a Committee of three Deans to resolve the situation, and the Deans instructed Dr Andrade and the second internal guide to sign the thesis regardless of their views about the credibility of the data in the thesis. The thesis was signed and sent to the original examiner who suggested revision, and to a third examiner who was also independently selected by the Director without reference to Dr Andrade. Both examiners considered that there were serious flaws in the work and one examiner drew specific attention to the implausibility of the data. Both examiners failed the student and, as per rules, no further chance could be given and the PhD registration of the student was cancelled.
Mr Hegde made representations to the Director and to various higher authorities, and his representations were considered by the Academic Committee of NIMHANS which supported the decisions taken by the Institute because the rules had been strictly followed.
Since then, Mr Hegde has proceeded on a path that is best described as RTI harassment. He submitted about 70 RTI seeking voluminous information from Dr Andrade, who had by then just taken over as the new Dean and CPIO. Realizing that there was a conflict of interest, the Director assigned the RTIs from Mr Hegde to other CPIOs. However, the other CPIOs were unfamiliar with the case and were overwhelmed by the extensiveness of the information sought. There was therefore a delay in providing the information.Page 15 of 20
Dr Andrade was then asked to assist. However, by then the 30-day period for providing information had lapsed, and Mr Hegde made appeals to the first appellate authority as well as to the Central Information Commissioner. Whereas some information was provided to Mr Hegde, in response to one batch of the RTIs, he rejected the responses because he wanted to receive the information „in a proper format‟.
A batch of 10 appeals was heard by the First Appellate Authority on Dec 28, 2017, and the responses were provided to Mr Hegde free of cost within a week. Further appellate hearings have not been held because Mr Hegde had already approached the Central Information Commissioner and because a date of hearing with the CIC was fixed.
Submissions of the Respondent thus indicate that once the thesis was complete and submitted by the candidate, there is no role of the guide in the rejection or success of the said thesis. In fact by the time the thesis was re- submitted after revision and rejected for a second time by the examiners, with one of the examiners also quitting the role, Dr. Chittaranjan did not even hold the position of guide. The FAA informed that some of the information was supplied to the applicant free of cost, while considering the voluminous and incessant nature of queries, they started charging fees in order to compensate atleast the cost incurred in furnishing the hundreds of pages. The FAA concluded his averments stating that he has studied all the first appeals and applications filed so far by the applicant and is of the opinion that the applicant having been unsuccessful academically, has been unnecessarily harassing the PIO, venting out his personal grudge arising out of the miserable academic failure, under the misconstrued fallacy that the PIO is responsible for rejection of his thesis.
The PIO- Dr. Chittaranjan was also given opportunity to place his submissions. He submits that despite one of the three guides of the applicant for six years, the candidate never disclosed his research data even to his guide. It was only after submissions of the thesis by the candidate that all three guides realised that none of the three had ever been shown the data submitted by their candidate. Even when the guides sought to examine the data, the applicant denied sharing the same. Consequently, the Examiners rejected the thesis on account of discrepancy in data. In fact when the thesis was rejected for a Second and final time despite opportunity of revision of the same, one of the Examiners made detailed observations and comments about the data supplied by the candidate being faulty, doubtful and full of discrepancies. An examiner Page 16 of 20 in fact resigned from the post in order to recuse himself of the role per se. On being rejected twice, in terms of the rules governing NIMHANS, the candidate was denied any further opportunity of carrying on his research. This drew the NIMHANS and the Guide - Dr. Chittaranjan Andrade, Dean into facing the onslaught in the form of a slew of RTI applications, appeals and complaints. The PIO submitted that they have been overwhelmed with a flood of repetitive and incessant RTI queries ranging on all possible and imaginable subjects about him. The PIO submits that responding to such humungous volume of continuous queries, which comprise of 69 RTI cases as on date have crippled their functioning and seriously compromised their resources.
Decision:
1. After hearing the parties and perusal of the detailed records of the case, the Commission notes that since most of the contentions placed forth by the parties during the hearing are oral in nature, it is imperative to have a brief synopsis filed by both parties concluding their averments and reducing the oral contentions into written statements. The submissions from the parties received vide email dated 28.02.2018, have been made part of proceedings and relevant extracts thereof reproduced hereinabove.
2. On the basis of the detailed examination of the averments of the parties and hearing their respective arguments, certain noteworthy points thus emerge:
i. Perusal of the replies, as noted from Complainant's submissions sent by email dated 23.02.2018 and appellant's averments during the hearing reveal that in most of the cases, the queries raised by the applicant have been duly responded by the Respondent.
ii. However, applicant has not submitted any of the response received from the Respondent alongwith the Complaints. This can be construed as an attempt to deliberately conceal relevant information with a view to distort, manipulate and misrepresent the factual position.
iii. It is evident from the spate of queries that the information in response to the queries is spread over voluminous records. In view of the mass of information contained in huge number of pages, the response of the Respondent requesting for depositing fees is not incorrect. The contention of the Respondent on this count is found justified and on this Page 17 of 20 issue, thus the Commission is in agreement with the Respondent that collecting such huge volume of information would disproportionately divert their resources from the day to day work. It is noteworthy that the Complainant has not established any larger public interest, which would warrant a directive to the Respondents to provide the information, sought by the Complainant, even at the cost of diverting their resources from their day to day work. In the above context, we also note the observations of the Supreme Court in the celebrated case of Central Board of Secondary Education and Anr. Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay and Ors. [(2011) 8 SCC 497]:
"....Indiscriminate and impractical demands or directions under RTI Act for disclosure of all and sundry information (unrelated to transparency and accountability in the functioning of public authorities and eradication of corruption) would be counter- productive as it will adversely affect the efficiency of the administration and result in the executive getting bogged down with the non-productive work of collecting and furnishing information. The Act should not be allowed to be misused or abused, to become a tool to obstruct the national development and integration, or to destroy the peace, tranquility and harmony among its citizens. Nor should it be converted into a tool of oppression or intimidation of honest officials striving to do their duty. The nation does not want a scenario where 75% of the staff of public authorities spends 75% of their time in collecting and furnishing information to applicants instead of discharging their regular duties. The threat of penalties under the RTI Act and the pressure of the authorities under the RTI Act should not lead to employees of public authorities prioritizing 'information furnishing' at the cost of their normal and regular duties..."
iv. Complainant's queries vide the 30 odd RTI applications coupled with his oral contentions during the hearing reveal that the queries are actually not aimed at eliciting information but are a by-product of his frustration at having been unsuccessful in his academic life. He has attributed the failure to his almameter and filed RTI applications, appeals, complaints with an aim to wreak vengeance upon the Respondent public authority as a whole and the PIO in particular. The conduct of the complainant in challenging the correctness of his guide/s and examiners does not inspire any confidence in the earnestness of his queries. This is not only a complete abuse of the RTI Act as such but also an attempt to demean and challenge the educational parameter and Page 18 of 20 operation of the stature NIMHANS which is an elite institution of the country. Such vindictive approach and harassment of faculty cannot be permitted in any civilised society, lest such a noble profession like education be dreaded by the teachers/guides/examiners.
The Commission notes that the applicant's queries challenging the correctness of the decision of his guides and examiners in rejecting his thesis cannot be entertained since it is the domain of academic experts and must not be interfered by the judiciary in any case. It is well settled proposition of law and the Commission draws reference from the decisions of the Apex Court in the celebrated cases like (a) State of Tamil Nadu v. K. Shyam Sunder (AIR 2011 SC 3470), (b)The Bihar School Examination Board v. Subhas Chandra Sinha [(1970) 1 SCC 648] etc. wherein the Courts have debarred any judicial interference in educational institutions holding that the Courts should not interfere with such decisions of the academic authorities who are experts in their field. It is not for the Courts or other judicial or quasi judicial bodies to adjudicate with the operational or functional correctness of any academic institution. Reference is drawn to the case of Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education v. Paritosh Bhupeshkumar Sheth [1984 (4) SCC 27], on this subject as follows:
"...the Court should be extremely reluctant to substitute its own views as to what is wise, prudent and proper in relation to academic matters in preference to those formulated by professional men possessing technical expertise and rich experience of actual day-to-day working of educational institutions and the departments controlling them..."
3. On the basis of the ratio propounded in the decisions above, the well settled law and the facts of the case, this Commission is of the considered opinion that no further action is required to be taken in these cases, wherein the rejection of the applicant's thesis by the experts/guides/examiners of NIMHANS has been questioned, challenged and almost held at ransom by the barrage of RTI queries put forth by the Complainant. In fact, the Commission notes that this is an extremely unhealthy trend on the part of failed academics to misuse the RTI regime for settling their scores with their academic institutions by levelling unsubstantiated charges against learned Professors and academicians. How can the high standards and sanctity of Institutions of Higher Learning be maintained if students and interns start questioning their Page 19 of 20 own examiners, guides and even the examination system itself. Such a trend portends ill for the future of our Educational Institutions.
4. The Commission finds no justification behind the 30 Complaints, nor any merit in the grievance of the complainant. It is certain that any further disclosure of information sought by the complainant will by no means be in line with the object of the RTI Act, 2005 which aims at 'setting out a practice regime of right to information'. The Commission makes it amply clear that no further RTI applications or appeals/complaints will be entertained by this Bench of the Commission on the same subject matter.
The cases are disposed of as such.
(Yashovardhan Azad) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy. Additional copies of orders shall be supplied against application and payment of the charges prescribed under the Act to the CPIO of this Commission.
(R.P. Grover) Designated Officer Page 20 of 20