August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi-110066 F. No.CIC/YA/A/2014/900059 Date of Hearing : 30.03.2015 Date of Decision : 30.03.2015 Appellant/Complainant : Shri Gireesh K.
Kerala Respondent : Smt. Punitha, PIO Pondicherry University Puducherry Information Commissioner : Shri Yashovardhan Azad Relevant facts emerging from appeal: RTI application filed on : 12.08.2013 PIO replied on : 12.09.2013 First Appeal filed on : 01.10.2013 First Appellate Authority (FAA) order on : 24.10.2013 Second Appeal/complaint received on : 03.12.2013 Information sought: The appellant sought copies of his answer sheets along with the scheme of valuation of the same.
Relevant facts emerging during hearing: Both parties are present. The appellant filed an RTI application dated 12.08.2013, seeking the above information. CPIO/Asst. Registrar in her reply stated that decision to provide the answer sheets is yet to be taken and that scheme of evaluation is between the University and Chairman which is exempted u/s 8(1)(c), as it falls under fiduciary relationship. The appellant in his first appeal pressed for the answer sheets for the 5 examination paper, which the FAA denied stating that there is no provision for providing answer sheets. The appellant has not pressed for information on Point 2.
The appellant stated that inspection of answer sheets was allowed to him and that he inspected his answer sheets. He stated that he found discrepancy in the same, but to prove the same he requires the answer sheets. The respondent stated that the same cannot be provided as per University rules.
Decision: After hearing the parties and on perusal of record, the Commission notes that the appellant was not provided with his own answer sheets. It was being denied to the appellant by the respondent public authority stating that there is no provision for the same under University rules.
The purpose of the RTI Act is that disclosure of information shall be the norm while exemption shall be the exception. Therefore, in case of such inconsistency between the university rules and the rti act, it is the latter which will prevail due to its overriding effect as per section 22 of the rti act. section 22 of the rti act reads as 22. act to have overriding effect - The provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in the Official Secrets Act, 1923, and any other law for the time being in force or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any law other than this Act.
The Honble Supreme Court in Central Board of Secondary Education & Anr. Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors., held,
What arises for consideration is the question whether the examinee is entitled to inspect his evaluated answer-books or take certified copies thereof. This right is claimed by the students, not with reference to the rules or bye-laws of examining bodies, but under the RTI Act which enables them and entitles them to have access to the answer-books as information and inspect them and take certified copies thereof.
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/byelaws of the examining body governing the examinations.
In the instant case, the respondent authority has failed to demonstrate that the information sought by the appellant on Point 1 falls under the exempted category as specified u/s 8 of the
RTI Act, thus, the respondents are bound to provide access to an examinee to inspect and take copies of his answer books. The Commission, therefore, directs CPIO/Asst. Registrar to provide information on Point 1 to the appellant, within two weeks of the receipt of this order, with intimation to the Commission.
The Commission notes with serious concern that both the PIO & FAA failed to act as per provisions of the RTI Act. The public authority is cautioned not to deal with RTI applications in a casual manner and to take due cognizance of provisions of the Act. The Commission also finds that the FAA did not provide an opportunity of being heard to both the parties. The FAA, being a quasi judicial body, should have given an opportunity of being heard to the appellant and then, gone into aspects like whether information can be provided or not, etc. The FAA should have exercised his quasi judicial power, which he did not exercise. The Commission, therefore, cautions the FAA to strictly follow provisions of the RTI Act while disposing of appeals and pass a speaking order after taking due cognizance of merits of each case. Vice Chancellor, Pondicherry University is directed to take note of the manner in which the CPIO/FAA have dealt with RTI application/first appeal. A copy of this order may be marked to Vice Chancellor, Pondicherry University for information and necessary action.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
(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.
(B.D. Harit) Deputy Secretary & Deputy Registrar