Back
Rules University Cannot Impose Rs 1,000 Fee for RTI Answer Scripts
In a significant ruling that reaffirms the primacy of the over , the (CIC) has held that a university cannot charge a fixed institutional fee for providing copies of answer scripts when the information is sought under the .
The case involved Ahmed Shakir, a student of affiliated with , who had applied under the for a photocopy of his evaluated answer script in the Philosophy paper. The university’s Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) demanded an additional ₹1,000, citing an internal university notification. The CIC set aside this demand, directing the CPIO to provide the answer script free of cost within two weeks.
A Student’s Quest for Verification
Ahmed Shakir had appeared for the FYUG 2nd Semester Examination in 2025 and secured 35 out of 70 marks in the Philosophy (DSM 151) paper. Dissatisfied with the evaluation, he filed an RTI application on seeking a certified copy of his answer script. The CPIO replied on , stating that an additional payment of ₹1,000 was required as per the notification dated . The First Appellate Authority upheld this demand, asserting that , being an autonomous body, had fixed a charge of ₹1,000 per answer script.
Aggrieved, the appellant approached the CIC, arguing that the university, being a under , is bound by the , which prescribe a fee of only ₹2 per page for photocopying.
Clash Between and University Rules
The appellant’s counsel contended that the demand of ₹1,000 was a direct violation of , which limits the charge to ₹2 per page. He further argued that contains a giving the Act over any inconsistent law or instrument, including internal university regulations. Reliance was placed on the ’s decision in ICSI v. Paras Jain (Civil Appeal No. 5665/2014), where it was held that if a candidate chooses to seek information under the , the must charge fees strictly in accordance with the RTI Rules, and cannot enforce its internal guidelines to demand higher fees.
The CPIO, on the other hand, defended the demand, stating that the university is an autonomous body capable of framing its own rules, and that the appellant had previously paid similar fees without protest. However, the CPIO agreed to abide by the Commission’s directions.
CIC’s Legal Reasoning: Overrides Internal Rules
The Commission, after hearing both sides, observed that the core issue was whether the university could demand an additional ₹1,000 for providing the answer script under the . Information Commissioner Sudha Rani Relangi noted:
“The demand of additional fees of Rs. 1,000/- by the CPIO for evaluated answer scripts of Appellant when the information has been sought under the , 2005 is not within the confines of the and the RTI Rules, 2012 made thereunder.”
The Commission emphasised that under the , it is not permissible to take refuge in other rules or regulations for stipulating fees that are inconsistent with the Act. Referring to Section 22, the CIC stated:
“When any Rules/Bye Laws are found inconsistent with the , 2005 then the of Section 22 becomes operative... The provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in the , 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 Commission also drew strength from the ’s ruling in ICSI v. Paras Jain , where the Court held that the existence of institutional mechanisms for obtaining answer scripts and the statutory route under the are independent and not mutually exclusive. The CIC quoted:
“If a candidate seeks information under the provisions of the Right to Information, then payment has to be sought under the Rules therein, however, if the information is sought under the Guidelines of the appellant, then the appellant is at liberty to charge the candidates as per its guidelines.”
Thus, the CPIO was under an obligation to provide the answer script sought under the by charging only the photocopying fees prescribed under the RTI Rules, 2012.
Decision and Implications
The CIC allowed the , set aside the impugned decision of the respondent, and directed the CPIO to provide the appellant’s evaluated answer script free of cost within two weeks of receipt of the order. The Commission also cautioned the CPIO to exercise in future while replying to such RTI applications.
This ruling reinforces the principle that public authorities cannot circumvent the by imposing arbitrary fees through internal rules. It affirms the supremacy of the and ensures that students and citizens can access information without being burdened by excessive charges.
