Abne Ingty v. CPIO, Delhi University, New Delhi

DECISION:

4. Though it is called an appeal, by content it is a complaint. Appellant was questioning the  regulation of Delhi University alleging that it enables University to impose unreasonable timeframes   and   cost   constraints   on   their   right   to   secure   copy   of   answer­sheet.   He   wanted  information about fee and reasons for collecting huge fee. He contended that the time taken and cost being charged by the University was against the Act and also the judgment of  Honorable Supreme Court of India in the case of CBSE v Aditya Bandopadhyay [SLP (C) No. 7526/2009].   Appellant Mr. Abner Ingty contended that DU policy was infringement of  liberty of students to get a photocopy of answer script and their right to access was denied by prescribing unreasonable time and cost constraints. Because of this the student will lose his right to evaluate himself after going through the answer script and to improve upon. He claimed that information he sought was related to life and liberty as he was deprived of self­evaluation.  On 14th July 2015, the appellant along with some other students wrote a letter to CPIO that if a  student desires to assess his performance by taking the copies of answer­sheets in five papers, he has to pay Rs 3750 and such a request should be made between the 61st and 75th days from  the  date  of   declaration  of   the  results  which  is  far   too  long  considering  the  date  of   next  examinations and need for preparation. This right is claimed by students not with reference to rules or byelaws of examining body but under RTI Act. They claimed that the DU Rules do not  refer to RTI of students, as they were part of general examination rules. If they want to decide  the RTI applications with those general rules, the question of conflict between those rules and  RTI Act should be answered.  Section 22 of RTI Act, the RTI Act laid down specifically that RTI  Act will prevail and override the University rules and bye­laws if they conflict with the disclosure  norms of RTI Act. 

5. The RTI Act and Rules have dealt with the aspect of fee and cost specifically. They are as  follows:

(i) Section 7 of RTI Act says: “…provide the information on payment of such fee as may be  prescribed…”.

(ii) Section 7(2)(a) says that the PIO has to ‘give details of further fees representing cost of  providing the information as determined by him together with the calculations made to arrive at  the amount in accordance with fee prescribed under sub­section(1) requesting him to deposit  that fees….”.

 (iii) As per Section 7(2)(b), the PIO has to inform the applicant “concerning his right with  respect   to   review   the   decision   as   to   the   amount   of   fee   charged   or   the   form   of   access  provided…”.

(iv) The Right to Information (Regulation of Fee and Cost) Rules 2005, framed by the  Central Government mandates under Rule 4 ‘For providing information under S7(1), the fee  shall be charged by way of cash against proper receipt or by demand draft or bankers cheque  (or Indian Postal Order) payable to the Accounts Office of the public authority at the following  rates, (a) rupees two for each page (in A4 or A3 size paper)created or copied; (b) actual charge  or cost price of a copy in larger size paper; (c) actual cost or price for samples or models; and  (d) for inspection of records, no fee for the first hour; and a fee of rupees five for each  subsequent hour (or fraction thereof).

6. Dean, Examination Branch of Delhi University issued a notification on 19th  September 2009  listing out details of examination fee for various examinations, re­evaluation, re­checking of  paper etc. The official website of Delhi University displayed the Rules for supply of copy of  evaluated answer script which says “Prescribed fee: Rs 750 per paper is to be deposited with  the   University   Cashier.   These   Rules   made   it   mandatory   for   students   to   submit   certain  documents, verification from Head, and prescribed place and time of submission etc. These  rules and Regulations are made generally by the University. They are not specifically prescribed  to deal with the applications filed under Right to Information Act, 2005. Apparently, these rules  are in conflict with the RTI Rules promulgated by Central Government in 2005 as mentioned in  previous paragraph.

7. Hon’ble   of   Supreme   Court   of   India   in  CBSE   v   Aditya   Bandopadhyay   [SLP   (C)   No.  7526/2009] had held as follows:

 “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 answer­book and submits  it to the examining body for evaluation and declaration of the result, the answer­book  is   a   document   or   record.   When   the   answer­book   is   evaluated   by   an   examiner  appointed by the examining body, the  evaluated answer­book becomes a record containing the `opinion' of the examiner.  Therefore the evaluated answer­book is  also an`information' under the RTI Act.” Rejecting the contention that exemption in S  8(1)(e)   applies   to   answer   book,   the   SC   held:   “if   a   relationship   of   fiduciary   and  beneficiary is assumed between the examining body and the examinee with reference  to the answer­book, section 8(1)(e) would operate as an exemption to prevent access  to any third party and will not operate as a bar for the very person who wrote the  answer­book, seeking inspection or disclosure of it. (Para 24) In paragraph 29, the  Supreme Court stated: “The right to access information does not extend beyond the  period during which the examining body is expected to retain the answer­books”.

8. In Aditya Bandopadhyaya case, Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in paragraph 25 had further  observed that :

“An   evaluated   answer   book   of   an   examinee   is   a   combination   of   two   different  `information'. The first is the answers written by the examinee and second is the  marks/assessment   by   the   examiner.   When   an   examinee   seeks   inspection   of   his  evaluated answer­books or seeks a certified copy of the evaluated answer­book, the  information sought by him is not really the answers he has written in the answer­books  (which he already knows), nor the total marks assigned for the answers (which has  been declared). What he really seeks is the information relating to the break­up of  marks, that is, the specific marks assigned to each of his answers. When an examinee  seeks `information' by inspection/certified copies of his answer­books, he knows the  contents thereof being the author thereof. When an examinee is permitted to examine  an answer­book or obtain a certified copy, the examining body is not really giving him  some information which is held by it in trust or confidence, but is only giving him an  opportunity to read what he had written at the time of examination or to have a copy of  his answers. Therefore, in furnishing the copy of an answer­book, there is no question of breach of confidentiality, privacy, secrecy or trust. The real issue therefore is not in regard to the answer­book but in regard to the marks awarded on evaluation of the  answer­book. Even here the total marks given to the examinee in regard to his answerbook are already declared and known to the examinee. What the examinee actually  wants to know is the break­up of marks given to him, that is how many marks were  given   by   the   examiner   to   each   of   his   answers   so   that   he   can   assess   how   is  performance has been evaluated and whether the evaluation is proper as per his  hopes and expectations. Therefore, the test for finding out whether the information is  exempted or not, is not in regard to the answer book but in regard to the evaluation by  the examiner”.

9. Hon’ble   Supreme   Court   of   India   in   the   case   of  ICAI   v.   Shaunak   Satya   [SLP   (C)   No.  2040/2011]  had held that copies of evaluated answer­sheet cannot be under any exemption  prescribed   under   RTI   Act.     In  Manish   Goel   v   Union   Public   Service   Commission  [CIC/SM/A/2012/001654 & 1708], the Central Information Commission held that this right to  get copies of answer sheet could not be denied.

10. Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court has thoroughly examined the issue of charging a higher  fee for answer­sheet by universities in case of  Alka Matoria vs Maharaja Ganga Singh  University and Ors. [AIR 2013 Raj 126] dated 21.12.2012 held:

“Having regard to the purpose of the enactment and the nature and purport of the provisions  therein, we are of the view that even if the respondent­University were to make independent  regulations for the purpose of providing certified copies, so far the fields covered by the  Rajasthan Rules of 2005 are concerned, the respondent University cannot make any such  regulation that could stand at conflict with such rules. (Page 10)

….

... it is noticeable from the regulations of Banaras Hindu University and University of Delhi that  such Universities have provided for the fees squarely in conformity with the fees as prescribed  and as provided in the aforesaid (RTI) Rules of 2005 whereas Dr. Sarvapalli Radhakrishnan  Rajasthan Ayurved University, Jodhpur has provided a fees of Rs. 1,000/­ so as to show the  answer­book to the candidate; the University of Rajasthan has provided a fees of Rs. 580/­ for  obtaining certified copy of answer­book; and the University of Kota has provided for such  fees for certified copy at Rs. 500/­ per answer­book. Though we have noticed these different  scales of fees but in our view, nothing much turns upon them either way and merely because  some University has chosen to provide a higher fees, that by itself  does not invest the  respondent­University with any right to charge such kind of fees which is otherwise not   in conformity with the requirements of overriding the provisions of the Act of 2005 and   rules framed there under, operating in the field of quantum of fees.

In the ultimate analysis, we are clearly of view that the impugned condition i.e., condition No. 2  as   reproduced   hereinabove   in   the  regulations   framed   by   the   respondent­University deserves   to   be   quashed   as   illegal   and   the   respondent­University   deserves   to   be  directed to provide the certified copy of the answer­book to the petitioner after charging  the fees as prescribed under the Rajasthan Rules of 2005 and not beyond.”

11. Hon’ble Rajasthan High  Court  (supra) in relation to the exorbitant  fee of  Rs 1000  charged by the University, further observed that :

“Viewed from any angle, charging of exorbitant fees of Rs.1,000/­ for the purpose of  providing copy of answer­book to a student by the respondent­University does not  stand in conformity with the object and purpose of the Act of 2005, stands at stark  conflict with the rules governing the field, and appears to be highly unreasonable. So far incurring of the extra expenditure by the University is concerned, the submissions have  only been noted to be rejected. Any such vague reference to the alleged expenditure cannot,  by any stretch of imagination, be the justification for the respondent University to flout the  requirements of the applicable statutory provisions; and the University cannot claim any special  treatment than the other public authorities as regards the operation of the Act of 2005. So far  the operation of the Act of 2005 is concerned, particularly as regards costs of providing  information, such submissions on the part of the respondent­University who is supposed to be  an agency of the welfare State, appear to be rather illogical and unreasonable apart from being  totally baseless….

“Charging  of  fees  of  Rs.1,000/­  for   providing  copy  of  answer   book,  in   the  ultimate  analysis, appears to be an ill­intended attempt on the part of the respondent­University  to somehow discourage the students from seeking certified copies of their answerbooks.   Such   strange   regulations   only   demonstrate   scant   respect   shown   by   the  respondent­University to the cherished object of the Act of 2005 and the principles  expounded by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Aditya Bandopadhyay’s case (supra). The  offending condition in the regulation is required to be quashed”

12. Maharaja Ganga Singh University, Bikaner has filed Special Leave Petition before the  Hon’ble Supreme Court, which was called on for hearing on 22nd  April 2013. The Bench  consisting of Justice R M Lodha and Justice Kurian Joseph had heard Mr H D Thanvi and Mr  Sarad Kumar Singhania Advocates for petitioners and held:   ‘Heard learned counsel for the  petitioner. Special Leave Petition is dismissed’. This means the Judgment of Rajasthan High  Court has assumed finality and as per Article 141 it is the law for the nation.  Thus, it is clear   according to above decision of Rajasthan High Court that a university cannot charge more than  what is prescribed by the RTI Rules.

13. Full bench of this Commission in the case of Tehsildar & Ors Vs. University of Delhi  [CIC/RM/A/2012/000512/LS] dated 29.05.2014 while adjudicating on the question of Whether  the University of Delhi can prescribe fee of Rs 750/­ for supply of copy of an evaluated answer  script under section 7(3) of RTI Act, had observed as follows:

“As the Hon’ble Supreme Court and Hon’ble High Court of Delhi are seized of the

matter   which  is  the  subject  matter  of   adjudication  before  the  Commission,   the  appeal is adjourned until the matter is decided by the Hon’ble Courts.”

14. This case was not decided on the merits of the issue. It was closed on the assumption  that this issue was pending consideration before Delhi High Court or other High Courts. Though  decision of Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court referred above was brought to the notice of the  Bench, the fact that the SLP filed against this decision was heard and dismissed was not  brought to the notice of the Commission. 

15. Looking at the facts of the case, the Commission found Delhi University made separate  set of Rules under RTI Act which was not followed in this case. Delhi University’s very own  manual   no.   17   as   per   Section   4   (1)(b)(xvii)   [http://www.du.ac.in/   du/uploads/rti/RTIHandbook.pdf] on page 29, stated:

“For providing the information under sub­section (1) of section 7, the fee shall be charged by  way of cash against proper receipt or by demand draft or bankers cheque or Indian Postal  Order payable to the Registrar, University of Delhi at the following rates:­

(a) rupees two for each page (in A4 or A3 size paper) created or copied;

 (b) actual charges or cost price of a copy in larger size paper;

 (c) actual cost or price for samples or models; and

  (d) for inspection of records, no fee for the first hour; and a fee of rupees five for each  subsequent hour (or fraction thereof.)

For providing the information under sub ­section (5) of section 7, the fee shall be charged by  way of cash against proper receipt or by demand draft or bankers cheque or Indian Postal  Order payable to the Registrar, University of Delhi at the following rates:­ (a) for information  provided in diskette or floppy rupees fifty per diskette or floppy; and (b) for information provided  in printed form at the price fixed for such publication or rupees two per page of photocopy for  extracts from the publications.”

16. The above Rules of the respondent authority are in conformity with RTI (Regulation of  Fee and Cost) Rules, 2005. The Delhi University has not applied these rules for copies answerbooks sought under RTI Act. It cannot discriminate by asking a higher cost for copies of answer  sheet from a student and Rs 2 per page in other cases. Imposing cost of Rs 750 per answer  book is, thus in violation of not only RTI Act and Rules, but also in breach of their own manual  for RTI, besides being against the order of Rajasthan High Court, which was finalized after SLP  was heard and dismissed by the Supreme Court.

17. The Commission has power and function under Section 18(1) (d) to receive and inquire  into a complaint from any person who has been required to pay an amount of fee which he or  she considers unreasonable. The complainant in this case exactly raised the same issue.  Under Section 19(8) (a), commission has power to require the public authority to take any such  steps as may be necessary to secure compliance with the provisions of the Act by making  necessary changes in its practices in relation to maintenance, management and destruction of   records.  Thus, the Commission is under a duty as per the RTI Act, to adjudicate the complaint  about unreasonable charging of fee for evaluated answer sheet and pass necessary orders. 

18. Imposing time and cost constraints over and above the norms prescribed by RTI Act and  Rules and charging Rs 750 per paper, which far more than Rs 2 for copy per page (as  prescribed) will impose economic burden on a student. It is an additional burden on student,  who has already paid an examination fee to the University, which sufficiently must have been  calculated to meet the expenditure to conduct examination including the cost of evaluation. This  is a huge amount over and above the fee collected, for recounting and re­evaluation. After  paying tuition fee, admission fee, examination fee, the student is asked to pay Rs 3750 for  copies of answer scripts in five papers. It is not end of the problem. He has to pay Rs 300 per  paper for re­checking and Rs 500 per paper for re­evaluation. As per RTI Act this Commission  has no power to interfere with the general fee structure of the University, but RTI Act has given  power and authority to the Commission to prevent denial of access to his own answer sheet by  public authority through this way of imposing unreasonable cost and time constraints. Charging  so high a fee/cost will not only deny the accessibility, but also immunize the public authority  from being accountable to students. The resultant situation is: If a student cannot pay Rs 750,  the Delhi University will become not accountable for its evaluation! This is against objective and  scheme of RTI Act.

19. Evaluated answer­book is ‘information’ as defined under RTI Act and as explained by  Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.   In a petition under RTI, the students can seek only for a  certified copy of their own answer sheet, but cannot demand re­evaluation etc, for which one  has to necessarily approach university authorities, pay fee whatever prescribed and follow the  prescribed procedure. University need not give access to answer sheets before declaration of  results.   Hon’ble  Supreme  Court   while  dealing  with  question  papers   and  model   answered  observed in the case of ICAI vs. Shaunak H. Satya [2011 (9) SCALE 639]:

 “..Therefore it is obvious that the Appellant examining body is not liable to give to  any citizen any information relating to question papers, solutions/model answers  and instructions relating to a particular examination before the date of such  examination. But the position will be different once the examination is held.  Disclosure of the question papers, model answers and instructions in regard to  any particular examination, would not harm the competitive position of any third  party once the examination is held. In fact the question papers are disclosed to  everyone at the time of examination. The Appellant voluntarily publishes the

"suggested answers" in regard to the question papers in the form of a book for  sale every year, after the examination. Therefore Section 8(1) (d) of the RTI Act  does not  bar or prohibit  the  disclosure of  question  papers,  model answers  (solutions  to questions)  and instructions  if  any given  to the  examiners  and  moderators after the examination and after the evaluation of answer scripts is  completed, as at that stage they will not harm the competitive position of any  third party...”

20. Similarly, as stated above access has to be given to students’ answer scripts after  declaration of results. Instead, the Delhi University is prescribing a time limit that until 60 days  are exhausted, he cannot apply and after 75th day also he will be disqualified to seek copy of  answer sheet. As per RTI Act and judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court, after declaration of  Results, the students are entitled to access the answer sheets also without any further limits.  The only requirement is answer books should have been held by public authority. A student  examinee cannot ask for a copy after the answer book was removed according to their record  retention policy.   Hence, imposing time limits such as, denying the RTI applications until 60  days after and beyond 75 days after declaration of results is also denial of RTI as they conflict  with RTI Act.

21. It is relevant to refer to the judgment of REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES & ORS vs.  DHARMENDRA KUMAR GARG & ANR [W.P.(C) 11271/2009], wherein Hon’ble Delhi High  Court had discussed the status of RTI Act in relation to a special enactment regarding the fees. Having gone through the judgment, Commission is of the view that although a University or  Public authority has the power to enforce their own fee in relation to providing of information,  but   the   only   condition   is   that   it   has   to   be   “reasonable”.   The   notification   quoted   by   the  respondent authority is a general one for obtaining answer sheet and is not specifically with  regard to RTI Act. Moreover, this fee was prescribed by way of notification in general and not as  per the RTI fee rules prescribed by them.

22. Rules and regulations are called “subordinate legislation” which the executive wing, i.e.,  the public authority can frame within the frame work of the Statute under which the rules are  being   made.   The   Act   delegates   some   power   to   the   appropriate   authority   to   make   this subordinate legislation. If they prescribe rules in excess of the statute, it will be “excessive  delegation”, which can be challenged.

23. It is also relevant to refer to decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court to amend  its RTI Rules to tune according to RTI Act. The High Court considered the PIL filed by Arjun  Shoeoran challenging “the rules framed by High Court for it and for the lower courts for their  conflict with the RTI Act and Rules”, as a representation to the Rules Committee (on Feb 14,  2013 in CWP 3265/2013 O&M). The Rules Committee of HC considered it and amended the  rules as prayed. After amendments, now fees can be paid in cash, which was not allowed  earlier under the old rules, Application can be submitted on plain paper, and cannot be rejected  on the ground that it was not made in Form A, application can be made on any working day,  during working hours, instead of the earlier rules where RTI applications were accepted only 2  hours in a day (11 am to 1 pm). Earlier, if a matter did not fall into his/her jurisdiction, the PIO  could return the RTI application to the applicant, and the fees paid was to be forfeited. That   provision, being illegal, has been done away with, and now the PIO will be duty bound to  forward the application as well as the fees to the appropriate public authority within 5 days as  per RTI Act. The application fee, as suggested, has been reduced from Rs 50 per application to  Rs 10 per application. If the subordinate legislation prescribes conditions beyond scope of  statute, they do not have legal force in general. Even without invoking section 22 of RTI Act,  applying Rules of Delhi University to deny the access to answer sheets, can be considered as  violative of right to information. 

24. In Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education and  Anr. V. Paritosh Bhupeshkumar sheth and Ors. (1984) 4 SCC 27, the Hon’ble Supreme  Court of India has declared that while examining whether a particular piece of delegated  legislation whether in the form of a rule or regulation or any other type of statutory instrument  was in excess of the power of subordinate legislation conferred on the delegate, has to be  determined  with reference only to the specific provisions contained in the relevant  statue  conferring the power to make the rules, regulation etc and the object and purpose of the Act as  can be gathered from the various provisions of the enactment.

25. In Paras Jain v. ICSI [LPA No. 275/2014], the Delhi High Court observed as follows : “Thus, the demand by the respondents from the petitioner to pay fee in the sum of Rs 500/ per  subject/answer book copy whereof is sought is not sustainable”/

26. Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of  CCE, Jamshedpur Vs. Ashok ARC  [2005 (121) ECR 281 (SC)] had observed as follows :

7. “We are unable to accept the submission that such  an interpretation  would  negate  Rule  173C(1 1). A Rule cannot override or be contrary to a Section. Under Section 4 the normal  price has to be  the value at which the goods are ordinarily sold. …”

27. Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of  Rallis India Ltd. Vs. The State of  Andhra Pradesh [AIR1980SC749] had observed as follows : “10. The only other argument put forward by Mr. Desai in support of the appeal rested on the provisions of Rule 27­A above extracted in its un­amended form. The rule can obviously be  of no help to him inasmuch as even if it can be construed as laying down something in favour of the appellant it cannot override the provisions of the Act under which it is  framed.  No   amount   of   argument   would   make   a   rule   override   or   control   the   legislative  enactment under the authority of which it comes into being and that is why the rule was  amended in 1974 so as to conform to the parent statute.”

28. Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Association of Management of Private  Colleges Vs. All India Council for Technical Education and Ors. [AIR 2013 SC 2310] had  observed in para 25 as follows :

“Further, it is contended by the learned Counsel that the High Court has failed to examine the  above said legal aspect of the amendment to the Regulations of AICTE in the year 2000  enlarging   the   scope   of   the   Act   to   areas   for   which   it   is   not   meant.   Such   amendment   in  Regulations will be ultra vires to the Act itself and cannot be sustained on this count alone.  This   Court   in   several   cases   has   laid   down   the   legal   principle   that   the   Rules   and  Regulations made under the Act cannot override or enlarge the object or purpose of the  Act.”

29. In  Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) Pvt. Ltd and Ors. Vs. Union of India

and Ors. [(1985) 1 SCC 641], Hon’ble Supreme Court of India held : Delegated legislation takes a number of forms and a number of terns­rules, regulations, byelaws etc; however, instead of the said labels what is of significance is the provisions in the  primary legislation which,   in   the   first   place,   confer     the   power   to     enact administrative   legislation.   Such   provisions are also called   as   "enabling provisions". They demarcate the  extent   of   the   administrators’   legislative   power, the decision­making power   and   the   policy  making power. However, any   legislation   enacted   outside   the   terms   of   the   enabling  provision   will   be   vulnerable to judicial review and ultra vires.”   As regard   delegated power   to  ‘restrict   and   modify",   it was held:   "delegation   ...cannot   extend   to   the   altering   in   essential   particulars of laws which are already in force in the area in question”.   "The     power     to     restrict and modify does not import the power to make essential changes...”

30. In NEET test case (Christian Medical College ... vs Union Of India & Ors [T.C.(C) NO.98 OF 2012] decided on 18th July, 2013, the Supreme Court   Bench consisting   Justice   Altamas Kabir, Anil   R   Dave,   Vikramjit   Sen,   JJ,  considered the question: (iv) Whether subordinate legislation, such  as the right to  frame  Regulations, flowing from a power given under a statute, can have an overriding effect  over  the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 25, 26, 29(1) and 30 of the Constitution?  The   Supreme   Court answered   “no”.     Supreme   Court   held “that the Regulations and the  amendments   thereto   have   been   framed   by   the   MCI   and   the DCI with the previous  permission   of   the   Central   Government   under   Entry   66,   List   I,   but   that   the  regulations cannot prevail over   the   Constitutional   guarantees   under   Articles   19(1)  (g), 25, 26,  29(1)  and 30  of  the Constitution”. 

31. Commission   finds   merit   in   contention   of   the   student   appellant   that   prescribing  unreasonable cost and time constraint will in fact amount to complete denial of information to  the students on grounds of their economic status, which is in violation of Article 14, 15 and 16 of  the Constitution of India. No citizen shall be discriminated on the basis of his access to  resources or any criteria including poverty as per his fundamental report to equality. It is very  sad that educational institution like university is not mindful of the basic fact and they are going  on denying information to the students, by imposing high cost, which means  if you cannot afford, you cannot access. Thus, charging of Rs 750 per answer sheet will amount to breach  of sections 3, 6 and 7 of the RTI Act.

32. Even if we accept the contention that the respondent authority was autonomous and  competent enough to make its own rules and regulations’, that authority has no power to restrict  the access to information, which was guaranteed by the RTI Act. The authority of university to  impose time and cost constraints on the student’s right to answer sheet will surely fail. 

33. The overriding effect of Section 22 cannot be watered down by Rule makers of public  authority.   the   Hon’ble   Kerala   High   Court   in   the   case   of  KPSC   vs.   State   Information  Commission [AIR 2011 KER 135] had observed as follows:

“...This is because Section 22 of the RTI Act provides that the provisions of that  Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained  in the Official Secrets Act, 1923 (19 of 1923), and any other law for the time  being in force or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any law other than  that Act. Such statutory provision having been made by the legislature, within its  competence, it cannot be watered down or modified except by recourse to  legislative procedures...”

34. Thus the high cost of Rs 750 per paper for securing copy of answer­sheet and time  conditions such that appellant has to approach only after 61 days and before 75 days after  result declared will unreasonably restrict the right to access to his own answer book and  breakup of marks awarded.

35. This not only violates the right under RTI Act, 2005 but also infringes fundamental right  under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India.  In  People's Union for Civil Liberties v.  Union of India – [(2004) 2 SCC 476], Supreme Court of India held that right of information is a  facet   of   the   freedom   of   "speech   and   expression"   as   contained   in Article   19(1)(a) of   the  Constitution of India and such a right is subject to any reasonable restriction in the interest of   the security of the state and subject to exemptions and exceptions. This was reaffirmed by  referring to this judgment in CBSE v Aditya Bandopadhyay case.

36. In State of Rajastan v. Basant Nahata [AIR 2005 SC 3401], Hon’ble Supreme Court  of India observed that essential functions could not be delegated by legislature to the executive.  It must be judged with touch stone of Article 14 and Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is,  thus, only the ancillary and procedural powers which can be delegated and not the essential  legislative point.

37. A   University   or   any   other   authority   cannot   use   its   authority   to   make   subordinate  legislation to infringe the legal and constitutional rights of the students/citizens. Delhi University  Rules created two classes of students, those who can afford to have copy by paying Rs 750  and those who cannot. This is a clear breach of right to equality guaranteed by Article 14 of the  Constitution of India.

38. Hence, the Commission holds that Delhi University or any other university or public  authority for that matter cannot ignore or bypass the mandate of Indian Parliament given in  Right to Information Act.  The temple of Education cannot segregate students with reference to  access right on the grounds of affordability.

39. The Commission would agree with the opinion of Rajasthan High Court about charging  high fee that it appears to be an ill­intended attempt on the part of the Delhi University to  somehow discourage the students from seeking certified copies of their answer­books. “Such  strange regulations only demonstrate scant respect shown by the respondent­University to the  cherished object of the Act of 2005 and the principles expounded by the Hon'ble Supreme  Court in Aditya Bandopadhyay’s case (supra)”. In that case Rajasthan High Court has quashed   the offending condition.  Delhi University is a reputed institution with huge number of students  and staff and a long history of academic excellence. I hope that the concerned authorities will  realize that by creating easy access to answerbooks at a cost of Rs 2 per page will enhance the  possibility   of   standardizing   the   ‘accountability’   process   and   improving   the   standards   of  evaluation.

40. The Commission, in view of above discussion, exercising its power and performing its  function   under   Section   18(1)(d)  accepts   this   complaint  against   the   unreasonable   cost  demanded from student appellant and unreasonable time limits on this right, and exercising  power under Section 19(8)(iv) RTI Act, require the Delhi University: 

a) shall make necessary changes to its practices in relation to providing access and having a  copy of answer sheet at cost of Rs 2 per page as per their very own manual no. 17 and to  accept RTI applications from the date of results declaration throughout the period of retention of  record, as mandated by the RTI Act and Rules, as soon as possible but not beyond one month  from date of this order.

b) recommends the honorable members of the Executive Council to change the rule concerning  the answer sheet, which is discouraging students from seeking re­evaluation of answersheets  facilitating lack of accountability much against the letter and spirit of RTI Act,  

c) directs the CPIO to show cause why maximum penalty should not be imposed against him for  charging unreasonably high cost for answersheet in breach of the Delhi University Manual  which does not allow him to charge more than Rs 2 per page, 

d) directs  the public authority to show cause why it should not be directed to pay suitable  compensation to the appellant or students who were similarly charged high and unreasonable  cost for furnishing answersheet,

e) directs all the Universities in India, including deemed Universities and all examining bodies to  provide copies of answer sheet only at a cost of Rs 2 per page and make necessary changes to  their respective notifications accordingly as soon as possible but not beyond 30 days from the  date of this order.

f) directs  University   Grant   Commission   and   Association   of   Indian   Universities,   to   circulate,  publicize and insist on implementation of this order in all academic/examining bodies.

g) directs the Ministry of Human Resources Development, to circulate this order to all examining  bodies including Universities and make it mandatory for them to bring uniformity in the rules and  regulations by fixing cost at not more than Rs 2 per page of answer sheet.