Central Information Commission
Santanu Demuhuri vs University Grants Commission on 29 November, 2018
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग
, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द
ली, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं या / Second Appeal No.(s):- CIC/UGCOM/A/2017/158895-BJ
CIC/UGCOM/A/2018/104763-BJ
Mr. Santanu Demuhuri
....अपीलकता
/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Under Secretary
University Grants Commission
Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg
New Delhi - 110002
... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 26.11.2018
Date of Decision : 29.11.2018
ORDER
RTI I - File No. CIC/UGCOM/A/2017/158895-BJ Date of RTI application 26.03.2017 CPIO's response 18.04.2017 Date of the First Appeal 10.05.2017 First Appellate Authority's response 18.05.2017 Date of diarised receipt of Appeal by the Commission 24.08.2017 FACTS:
The Appellant vide his RTI application sought inspection of his answer scripts with respect to his graduation degree of B.Sc (H) Forensic Science for 2014 to 2017 batch, Amity University, Noida on the following subjects:-
a) Wild Life Forensics (5th Semester)
b) Forensic Practical V (5th Semester)
c) Forensic Evidence Management (5th Semester) Page 1 of 6
d) Personal Identification (4th Semester) The CPIO, vide its reply dated 18.04.2017 transferred the RTI application to the Registrar, Amity University, Noida under Section 6(3) of RTI Act, 2005 for necessary action. Dissatisfied by the response, the Appellant approached the FAA. The FAA, vide its order dated 18.05.2017 stated that relevant reply as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 had already been issued by the CPIO.
RTI II - File No. CIC/UGCOM/A/2018/104763-BJ Date of RTI application 08.08.2017 CPIO's response 30.08.2017 Date of the First Appeal 16.11.2017 First Appellate Authority's response 08.12.2017 Date of diarised receipt of Appeal by the Commission 23.01.2018 FACTS:
The Appellant vide his RTI application sought inspection of his answer scripts with respect to 6th Semester of B.Sc (H) Forensic Science on the following subjects:-
a) Social Communication (BC302),
b) Wounds and its Medico-Legal Aspects (FSIC312),
c) Forensic Practical VI (FSIC313),
d) Stress and Coping Strategies (BS302),
e) Security Documents and Bank Notes (FSIC315),
f) Quality Management and Accreditation in Forensic Science (FSIC322) The CPIO, vide its reply dated 30.08.2017 transferred the RTI application to the Registrar, Amity University, Noida under Section 6(3) of RTI Act, 2005 for necessary action. Dissatisfied by the response, the Appellant approached the FAA. The FAA, vide its order dated 06.12.2017 requested the Appellant to provide a copy of his letter.
HEARING:
Facts emerging during the hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant: Mr. Santanu Demuhuri in person;
Respondent: Mrs. Kundla Mahajan, US and Mr. Lokesh Kumar Jangra, SO;
The Appellant reiterated the contents of the RTI applications and stated that inspection of his answer sheets had not been offered, till date. The Respondent present during the hearing submitted that they had already forwarded both the RTI applications to the concerned authority i.e. Amity University, Noida with the direction to supply information directly to the Applicant. Therefore, there is nothing pending at their end.Page 2 of 6
During the hearing, the Appellant handed over a reply received by him from the Amity University vide letter dated 27.04.2017 wherein it was informed that since their University was a private unaided one, they do not come under the definition of "Public Authority" as defined in the RTI Act, 2005. It was further informed that the matter was sub-judice and hence no information could be provided.
The Commission was in receipt of a forwarding letter dated 22.11.2018 from the Respondent (University Grants Commission) wherein it was requested to the Registrar, Amity University, Noida to immediately provide the information sought by the Applicant as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 failing which it would be held responsible for violation of the various provisions of the RTI Act, 2005. It was further submitted that in case any penalty would be proposed for non-supply of information by the Commission, it would be the sole responsibility of the University.
Having heard both the parties, the Commission at the outset observed that the issue of access of his own answer sheet by a candidate had been long settled. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of CBSE and Anr. v. Aditya Bandopadhyay and Ors. SLP(C) NO. 7526/2009 observed that every examinee will have the right to access his evaluated answer-books, by either inspecting them or taking certified copies thereof unless the same was exempted under Section 8 (1) (e) of the RTI Act, 2005. The relevant observations made in the judgement are as under:
"11. The definition of 'information' in section 2(f) of the RTI Act refers to any material in any form which includes records, documents, opinions, papers among several other enumerated items. The term 'record' is defined in section 2(i) of the said Act as including any document, manuscript or file among others. When a candidate participates in an examination and writes his answers in an answer-book and submits it to the examining body for evaluation and declaration of the result, the answer-book is a document or record. When the answer-book is evaluated by an examiner appointed by the examining body, the evaluated answer-book becomes a record containing the 'opinion' of the examiner. Therefore the evaluated answer-book is also an 'information' under the RTI Act."
It was furthermore stated in para 14 of the above mentioned judgement "The examining bodies contend that the evaluated answer-books are exempted from disclosure under section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act, as they are 'information' held in its fiduciary relationship. They fairly conceded that evaluated answer-books will not fall under any other exemptions in sub section (1) of section 8. Every examinee will have the right to access his evaluated answer-books, by either inspecting them or take certified copies thereof, unless the evaluated answer-books are found to be exempted under section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act."
The aforesaid decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India CBSE and Anr. V. Aditya Bandopadhyay was further relied in the decision pronounced on 16.08.2016 by the Hon'ble Page 3 of 6 Supreme Court of India in Kumar Shanu and Anr. V. CBSE in I.A. No. 01/2016 in Contempt Petition No. 9837/2016 Civil Appeal NO.6454/2011.
Moreover, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the matter of SBI vs. Mohd. Sahjahan LPA 714/2010 dated 09.05.2017 had held as under:
11. In the case in hand, the examiner has returned the answer books to the SBI after completion of the examination. In the light of the principles laid down in Central Board of Secondary Education v Aditya Bandopadhyay the examining body (the SBI in this case) does not hold the evaluated answer sheets (in the written exam) or the assessment sheet of the interview in a fiduciary relationship, qua the examiner/member of the interview board.
Moreover, the Commission also observed that in a recent decision in CIC/UODEL/A/2017/140992-BJ+ CIC/UODEL/A/2017/603074-BJ dated 18.06.2018 it had held that the student was entitled to inspection of his/ her answer sheet. The said decision was also challenged before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the matter of the University of Delhi vs. Shri Mohit Kumar Gupta and Anr in W.P.(C) 9993/2018 dated 24.09.2018, wherein the Court while fixing the next date of hearing in the matter on 30.01.2019 held as under:
"It is clarified that this Court has not stayed the impugned order dated 18.06.2018 and inspection of the evaluated answer sheet shall be provided to the respondent no. 1 as directed. The question whether a student had any right to seek inspection of his/ her answer sheet will be considered on the next date."
Furthermore, in a recent decision in the matter of Mradul Mishra vs. Chairman, U.P. Public Service Commission and Ors., Civil Appeal No. 6723 of 2018 (Arising Out of SLP No. 33006 of 2017) dated 16.07.2018, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India had while deciding the issue as to whether the Appellant is entitled to see the answer sheets of the examination in which he participated, held as under:
"14. In our opinion, permitting a candidate to inspect the answer sheet does not involve any public interest nor does it affect the efficient operation of the Government. There are issues of confidentiality and disclosure of sensitive information that may arise, but those have already been taken care of in the case of Aditya Bandopadhyay where it has categorically been held that the identity of the examiner cannot be disclosed for reasons of confidentiality.
15. That being the position, we have no doubt that the Appellant is entitled to inspect the answer sheets. Accordingly, we direct the Respondent - U.P. Public Service Commission to fix the date, time and place where the Appellant can come and inspect the answer sheet within four weeks."
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 Page 4 of 6 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 felt that issue under consideration involved Larger Public Interest affecting the fate of all the students who wish to obtain information regarding their answer sheet/ marks obtained by them which would understandably have a bearing on their future career prospects which in turn would ostensibly affect their right to life and livelihood. Hence allowing inspection of their own answer sheet to the students ought to be allowed as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005.
The Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the landmark judgement of Olga Tellis and Ors. vs. Bombay Municipal Corporation 1985 SCR Supl. (2) 51 dated 10.07.1985 while recognising right to livelihood as being facet of the right to life enshrined under Article 21 held as under:
"Upon that assumption, the question which we have to consider is whether the right to life includes the right to livelihood. We see only one answer to that question, namely, that it does. The sweep of the right to life conferred by Article 21 is wide and far reaching. It does not mean merely that life cannot be extinguished or taken away as, for example, by the imposition and execution of the death sentence, except according to procedure established by law. That is but one aspect of the right to life. An equally important facet of that right is the right to livelihood because, no person can live without the means of living, that is, the means of livelihood. If the right to livelihood is not treated as a part of the constitutional right to life, the easiest way of depriving a person his right to life would be to deprive him of his means of livelihood to the point of abrogation. Such deprivation would not only denude the life of its effective content and meaningfulness but it would make life impossible to live. And yet, such deprivation would not have tobe in accordance with the procedure established by law, if the right to livelihood is not regarded as a part of the right to life. That, which alone makes it possible to live, leave aside what makes life livable, must be deemed to be an integral component of the right to life. Deprive a person of his right to livelihood and you shall have deprived him of his life."
INTERIM DECISION:
Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by both the parties and in the interest of natural justice and in accordance with Section 19 (4) of the RTI Act, 2005, the Commission directs the Respondent to inform the Registrar, Amity University to be present Page 5 of 6 during the next hearing either in person or through its duly authorised representative so as to enable it to defend or present its case before the Commission.
The Dy. Registrar, CIC is instructed to fix a short date of hearing in the matter.
Bimal Julka (िबमल जु का)
Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु )
Authenticated true copy
(अ भ मा णत स या पत त)
K.L. Das (के .एल.दास)
Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक)
011-26182598/ [email protected]
दनांक / Date: 29.11.2018
Copy to:
1. The Secretary, University Grants Commission, Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, ITO, Metro Gate No. 3, New Delhi-110002
2. The Vice-Chancellor, Amity University, Sector-125, Noida, Uttar Pradesh- 201313 Page 6 of 6