Central Information Commission
Mrbyragoni Sreenivas Goud vs Ministry Of Human Resource Development on 29 March, 2016
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
(Room No.315, BWing, August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi 110 066)
Prof. M. Sridhar Acharyulu (Madabhushi Sridhar)
Information Commissioner
CIC/SA/A/2015/001259
Byragoni Sreenivas Goud v. PIO, National Assessment and Accreditation
Council
Important Dates and time taken:
RTI: 22.06.2014 Reply: 24.06.2015 FAO: 30.07.2015
SA: 19.08.2015 Hearing: 14.03.2016 Decision: 29032016
Result: Disposed of with direction.
Parties Present:
1. Appellant is present. None represents Public authority.
FACTS:
2. Appellant by his RTI application had sought for certified copies of latest submitted Self Appraisal Reports (SAR) and Self Study Report (SSR) by the VNR Vignana Jyothi Institute of Engineering and Technology, Hyderabad, Telangana, if it is accredited by NAAC, link of the proactive disclosure under section 4 (1)(b) of the RTI Act on the official website of NAAC and provide information on the date when the website last updated along with the mobile phone numbers, office numbers and email addresses of all the public authorities. PIO replied on 24.06.2015, wherein for point no. 1 stated that SSR and SAR are a copyright document and not entirely a NAAC documents. As per the policy decision of NAAC, SSR/SAR submitted by higher education institutions is not sent outside the NAAC campus and for point no. 2 stated that the information is available in the website. Being unsatisfied, appellant filed First Appeal. Secretary, UGC and Director, NAAC by his letter dated 30.07.2015 stated that the information is part of SSR of VNR Vignan Jyothi Institute of Engineering and Technology and forwarded the RTI application to them and requested the appellant to contact the institution. Claiming non furnishing of information, appellant approached Commission. Decision:
3. The respondent authority claimed that Self Appraisal Reports (SAR) and Self Study Report (SSR) of VNR Vignana Jyothi Institute of Engineering and Technology is information copy righted by the institute and not entirely their documents. They also claimed that as per policy decision of NAAC, SSR/SAR submitted by the Higher Educational Institutes for the purpose of NAAC, Assessment and Accreditation (A/A) is not sent outside the NAAC campus.
4. Having heard the submission and perused the record, Commission observes that the claim of Dr. M. S. Shyamasundar of NAAC is not tenable. The First Appellant Authority has transferred the letter to the concerned college. PIO did not explain who had copyrighted and how he came to the conclusion that was copyrighted documents. Even if it is copyrighted, SSR and SAR are given for assessment and accreditation. When public authority had given Assessment and Accreditation in Higher Education Study and provide grade, people will seek admission based on the grade and parents have the right to know the basis of accreditation.
4. Assuming that the claim of PIO was correct and copyright subsisted, it is the duty of the Educational Institution to explain about their own institution and its policy to the NAAC. They have to justify their accreditation by detailed Self Appraisal reports. Mere mention of copyright cannot exempt the document from being disclosed. National Assessment and Accreditation Council claimed that according to their policy they would not send SSR and SAR outside the campus, being an autonomous institution of UGC. But, NAAC is expected to know that under Section 22 of the RTI Act, the respondent authority cannot deny the information under the claim of their policy which will be overridden by RTI Act. In relation to the claim of copyright by the PIO, we need to refer to Section 9 of the RTI Act which states as follows:
"9. Without prejudice to the provisions of section 8, a Central Public Information Officer or a State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, may reject a request for information where such a request for providing access would involve an infringement of copyright subsisting in a person other than the State."
5. The point to be considered by NAAC was whether the disclosure would result in copyright violation subsisting in a person other than the state. The Self Appraisal Report (SAR) and Self Study Report (SSR) is given by the institute to NAAC voluntarily for the purpose of accreditation, its disclosure itself is not infringement of copyright, if the appellant does not print the copies of these reports and sell them. It was neither the case of PIO nor of Institution, that appellant might publish and sell the reports and make money out of it. If the PIO assumed that this information belong to VNR Vignan Jyothi Institute of Engineering and Technology, they should have processed it under section 11(1) of RTI Act by consulting VNR Vignan Jyothi Institute of Engineering and Technology. Later, the PIO wrote to the appellant that it was transferred to the VNR Institute advising them to send the available information/document directly to the appellant. There was no response from the institution. This is a contradiction, on one hand they claim copyright restriction and on the other directs the institute to give information.
7. The appellant submitted to the Commission that he does not have any intention to print multiple copies of these reports and make money out of it. In fact nobody will purchase such reports; he just wanted to know what are the merits of this institution which secured an accreditation by the NAAC. From the letter of the PIO it is clear that he holds the reports with him, hence PIO is liable to give copy of the reports to the appellant subject to section 8 and 9. As there is no reasonable ground for apprehension of infringement of copyright, the exemption does not apply. The Commission, therefore, directs the respondent authority to furnish the same to the appellant within 15 days from the date of receipt of this Order.
8. With reference to second question, respondent authority claimed that the information is available on website, but the appellant claims that no such information was posted on the website. The Commission, therefore, directs respondent authority to provide certified copies of that information, within 20 days from the date of receipt of this order. With this observation, the present appeal is disposed off.
(M. Sridhar Acharyulu) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy (U. C. Joshi) Deputy Secretary Addresses of the parties:
1. The CPIO under RTI, National Assessment and Accreditation Council, PO Box No. 1075, Nagarbhavi, Bangalore560072.
2. Shri Byaragoni Sreenivas Goud 1516, Janaprya Bunglows, Macha Bolarum, Secunderabad500010.