In the case of Abne Ingty v. CPIO, Delhi University, New Delhi the appellant sought relief against the unreasonable large sum of fee (INR 750/-) that the Delhi University had enforced along with unconscionable specified period (btw 61st & 75th day) for students to view their answer scripts. The appellant demanded the reasoning behind the preposterous amount that overrides the judgment given by the Apex Court in CBSE v Aditya Bandopadhyay . The University though a sovereign body shouldn’t have guidelines that flouts the right and liberty of scholars to access information regarding their answer scripts. According to the appellant the specified norms of the institution divested his right of self assessment and the issue was correlated to life and liberty and that this right isn’t asserted alluding to the rules made by the examination body rather it is a right stated in the RTI Act itself.
It has been concisely confirmed in rule 7 of the Act that an authorized and recommended amount of fee can be charged for dispensing information. Section 7(2)(a) states that the PIO must provide the particulars and calculation that he concluded at for the payment of information. Section 7 (2)(b) has stated that PIO is to inform the beneficiary of right regarding re-examination of the compensation for informing and the mode in which he wants to acquire it.
DU’s guidelines conflicted with the directions specified in the RTI Act 2005. The reference of Alka Matoria vs Maharaja Ganga Singh University and Ors. was made where the Rajasthan High court held that Universities can’t enforce such policies that conflict with the provisions of the 2005 Act. Institutions charging INR 1000/-(Dr. Sarvapalli Radhakrishnan Rajasthan Ayurved University) & INR 580/- (Rajasthan University) from their students who want to review a copy of their answer scripts, such guidelines are to rescind due to its illicit nature. Having such policies are unlawful and give the impression of discouraging scholars who want to review their answer scripts. The court mandated that the universities there on are to charge fees as directed by the Rajasthan Right to Information Act 2005. The judgment of Registrar of Companies & Ors vs. Dharmendra Kumar Garg & Anr was cited in which the Delhi High Court held that even though Universities or Public Authorities have the capacity to implement rules and fees regarding information it ought to be justifiable. The court perceived that requirement of payment of INR 500/- for each subject’s answer script is not upholding and un-maintainable in the case of Paras Jain v. ICSI . The unjust price along with specified time seems like incitement to deny access of information to the student on an economic basis which breaches Art. 14 , 15 & 16 of our Constitution. Citizens should not be denied obtaining information on the grounds of poverty; it is his fundamental right to be treated equally.
Academic Organizations charging such high compensation such as 750/- from students seeking for their answer sheets and indirectly imposing that they can’t retrieve information if they don’t have enough finances. This not only transgresses with sections 3,6&7 of RTI Act 2005 but also with Art. 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. As stated in People’s Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India the apex court upheld that right to information was an element of ‘speech & expression’.
With respect to the reasoning mentioned above the Commission accepted the objection in opposition to inordinate prices imposed on students and by implementing the authorities vested upon by section 19(8)(iv) of the RTI Act it necessitated DU to
(i) change the cost at INR 2/- per page & receive RTI applications from the date of results until retention period.
(ii) Suggests the Executive council members to amend the rules that discourages scholars to obtain their re-evaluated answer scripts
(iii) Addresses CPIO to present reasons on why he shouldn’t be penalized for charging unjustifiable fee
(iv) Administers the public authority to compensate students who had to pay such outrageous amounts if they can’t provide any reason as to why they mustn’t
(iv) Directs every University and examining bodies in the country to charge INR 2/- per page for copies of answer papers
(vi) directs the Ministry of Human Resources Development to spread the said order to every examining body, and mandate them to fix the fee per page to nothing more than INR 2/-.
Aishwarya Says:
I have always been against Glorifying Over Work and therefore, in the year 2021, I have decided to launch this campaign “Balancing Life”and talk about this wrong practice, that we have been following since last few years. I will be talking to and interviewing around 1 lakh people in the coming 2021 and publish their interview regarding their opinion on glamourising Over Work.
If you are interested in participating in the same, do let me know.
Do follow me on Facebook, Twitter Youtube and Instagram.
The copyright of this Article belongs exclusively to Ms. Aishwarya Sandeep. Reproduction of the same, without permission will amount to Copyright Infringement. Appropriate Legal Action under the Indian Laws will be taken.
If you would also like to contribute to my website, then do share your articles or poems at adv.aishwaryasandeep@gmail.com
We also have a Facebook Group Restarter Moms for Mothers or Women who would like to rejoin their careers post a career break or women who are enterpreneurs.