O R D E R
1. The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 19.07.2023 seeking information on the following points:
(i) Supply complete details, circular, guidelines, regulations and eligibility, to get Honoris causa honorary doctorates, along with the legal status, against payments from NGOs, instead recognized, affiliated University or Educational establishments.
(ii) Scouts and Guides for Animals and Birds, along with OIPA: Indian People for Animals, both are registered Trusts, duly registered with NGO Darpan, obtained Page 1 of 3
1 / 45
1
UDYAM registration under MSME, passed resolution to decorate honorary doctorates as Honoris causa, supply terms and conditions, along with the legal status of these decorations.
(iii) Honoris causa honorary doctorates, awardee legal status to prefix Doctor as title, legal or illegal, crime - offense any legal establishment, IPC and CrPC.
(iv) NGOs are eligible or not, to grant Honoris causa honorary doctorates, without any academic expertise network and recognition, under technical - medical - education fields.
(v) Action taken on PRSEC-E-2023-0027208 and PMOPG-E-2023-0139006.
2. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 21.07.2023 and the same is reproduced as under:-
"Honorary doctorates are conferred by HEIS as per their statutes and ordinances. UGC did not frame any policy on conferment of Awards."
3. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Complainant filed a First Appeal dated 21.07.2023 alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading. The FAA vide order dated 24.07.2023 upheld the reply given by the CPIO.
4. Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint dated Nil.
5. The Complainant remained absent and on behalf of the respondent Shri M.K. Meena, Under Secretary and Shri Naresh Kumar, attended the hearing in-person.
6. The respondent while defending their case inter alia reiterated the erstwhile CPIO's reply dated 21.07.2023 and confirmed that Honorary doctorates were conferred by HEIS as per their statutes and ordinances and UGC did not frame any policy on conferment of Awards.
7. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing the respondent and perusal of records, observes that the CPIO has provided an appropriate reply to the RTI Application as per the provisions of the RTI Act. Further, in the absence Page 2 of 3
2 / 54
2
of the Complainant to plead his case or contest the CPIO's submissions, the Commission finds no scope of intervention in the matter. Accordingly, the complaint is closed. Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
(Anandi Ramalingam) (आनंदी रामल ंगम) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयुक्त) निनांक/Date: 28.05.2024
Authenticated true copy
Col S S Chhikara (Retd) (कनगल एस एस निकारा, (ररटायर्ग)) Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक)
011-26180514 (०११-२६१८०५१८)
Addresses of the parties:
1. The CPIO University Grants Commission, 35, Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi-110002
Page 3 of 3
3 / 45
3
Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org) 14 / 514
4
Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org) 51 / 15
5