The Hans India: Hyderabad: Tuesday,
January 17, 2017.
Not only in
India, in most of the democratic countries where the freedom of information
legislations are being implemented, the degree-related information of the
candidates is in public domain. The information is not treated as personal or
third party information. The
universities are giving such information, in general, except in some special
cases.
In Zumbrun v.
University of Southern California, 101 Cal. Rptr. 499, 506 (Ct. App. 1972)
(https://casetext.com/case/zumbrun-v-university-of-southern-california) the
Court of Appeal in California, Second District, Division Five, [25 Cal.App.3d 1
(Cal.Ct.App.1972)] held that “finding that facts giving rise to a fiduciary
duty had not been pleaded and that "[t]he mere placing of trust in another
person does not create a fiduciary relationship."
And in
paragraph 10 it held: “(10) The basic
legal relation between a student and a private university or college is
contractual in nature. The catalogues, bulletins, circulars, and regulations of
the institution made available to the matriculant become a part of the
contract.”
(This
conclusion was based on following cases: Carrv. St. John's University, New York
(1962) 17 A.D.2d 632, 633 [231 N.Y.S.2d 410, 413], affd. 12 N.Y.2d 802 [235 N
YS.2d 834]; Anthony v. Syracuse University (1928) 224 App. Div. 487, 489-490
[231 N.Y.S. 435, 438-439]; Goldstein v. New York University (1902) 76 App. Div.
80, 82-83 [78 N.Y.S. 739, 740]; People ex rel. Cecil v. Bellevue Hospital
Medical College (1891) 60 Hun 107 [14 N.Y.S. 490], affd. 128 N.Y. 621 [28 N.E.
253]; John B. Stetson University v. Hunt (1925) 88 Fla. 510, 517 [102 So. 637,
640]; University of Miami v. Militana (Fla.App. 1966) 184 So.2d 701, 703-704;
Barker v. Trustees of Bryn Mawr College (1923) 278 Pa. 121, 122 [122 A. 220,
221]; Greene v. Howard University (D.C. Dist. Col. 1967) 271 F. Supp. 609, 613;
see Dixon v. Alabama State Board of Education (5th Cir. 1961) 294 F.2d 150,157,
cert. den. 368 U.S. 930 [7L.Ed.2d193, 82 S.Ct. 368]; Searlev. Regents of the
University of California (1972) 23 Cal.App.3d 448, 452 [100 Cal.Rptr. 194].)
Kaus, P.J., and Reppy, J., concurred.
In Shapiro v.
Butterfield, 921 S.W.2d 649, 651-52 (Mo. Ct. App. 1996) it was held that that
no fiduciary relationship between faculty advisor and student existed; In Nigro
v. Research College of Nursing, 876 S.W.2d 681, 686-87 (Mo. Ct. App. 1994) it
was held that “there is no fiduciary relationship between an educational
institution and its applicants”.
Similar
judicial orders were given in following cases: President and Bd. of Trustees v.
Smith, 1999 WL 51799, at 2 (Ohio Ct. App. Feb. 1, 1999) (finding that there was
no support for the existence of a "fiduciary relationship between an
educational institution and a prospective student"); Ho v. University of
Tex., 984 S.W.2d 672, 693 (Tex. App. 1998) (finding, as a matter of law, that
no fiduciary duty between student and faculty member/advisor existed); Abrams
v. Mary Washington College, 1994 WL 1031166, at 4 (Va. Cir. Ct. Apr. 27, 1994)
(finding no basis in common law for creating a fiduciary relationship between
senior college officials and students).
The Central
Information Commissioner Smt. Annapurna Dixit in Case No: CIC/AD/A/2012/000256,
stated, “In relation to the marks obtained by a principal, it was held that:
“The educational qualifications cannot be considered as personal in nature ……”
The official
website of Delhi University has recently declared of results of B.A. Honors
(Humanities and Social Sciences), Part II (Semester IV) examination 2016,
Sr.No/ SEM/ 2016/530 available at
http://www.du.ac.in/du/uploads/Examination/Result/2016/UG/03102016_HUMANITIES-IV-SEM.pdf
(accessed on 09.12.2016 at 16:44 hrs), which shows the roll no, name of the
candidate, marks, passed or failed at a particular center.
This shows
the contention of the CPIO is totally wrong as the Delhi University is placing
the result of every candidate in public domain so that each student or any
citizen can verify the marks/result of students along with their name and roll
number. There is a merit in the contention of the appellant that the CPIO
invented these contentions only to deny the information in this case and they
are totally in conflict with their own practice of publication of results.
Thus the
contention of the CPIO that ‘the information of students is personal’ cannot be
correct. Other contention that ‘the information furnished by the students to
the public authority in fiduciary capacity’ is also not correct, because the
marks obtained by students, whether passed or not is the information generated
by the university, and that was not given by the students.
If someone is
asking for name, father’s name, date of birth and address under RTI, the
universities are rejecting it using Section 8(1)(j). Name is not personal. If
names are same for two candidates, the father’s name will be necessary to
identify the degree-holding student; students’ roll numbers, address may also
be useful to identify. The date of birth could be another factor which helps in
verifying the genuineness of the degree.
Generally,
the identification details of the graduates are in the public domain. They
should be made available for verification and the results with marks obtained
is also relevant public information, which is necessary for the society to know
whether a particular candidate is an eligible graduate or not.
With regard
to question whether disclosure of such identification-related information
causes invasion of privacy, or is that unwarranted invasion of privacy, the PIO
has not put forward any evidence or explained possibility to show that
disclosure of degree-related information infringes the privacy or causes
unwarranted invasion of privacy.
If name and
father’s name, degree obtained, the date or the marks or the roll number are
revealed, how can that cause invasion of privacy? The Commission observes that
the disclosure of details of educational records of a student, maintained at
University in no way infringes his/her right to privacy , hence there cannot be
any violation of section 8(1)(j) of the Right to Information Act, 2005. This is
primarily because the matters relating to educational qualifications of a
student (former/current) fall under the public domain.
The matters
relating to education of a student (current/former) are within the public
domain and hence the public authority is under an obligation to disclose
information accordingly.
Several
universities and educational institutes maintain registers wherein the name,
address and other details must be kept for verification and they offer. Most of
the RTI requests for degree-related information are answered positively. They
have also honoured the directions of the Information Commissions. It is the
question of the principle and has nothing to do with the individuals, whether
they are VVIPS or ordinary students.
Thus the
Commission directed the respondent authority, Delhi University, to facilitate
inspection of relevant register where complete information about result of all
students who passed in Bachelor of Arts, in year 1978 along with roll number,
names of the students, father’s name and marks obtained as available with the
University and provide certified copy of the extract of relevant pages from the
register, free of cost, before 30.12.2016. (Based on the decision of CIC in
Neeraj v Delhi University CIC/SA/C/2016/900122, on 21.12.2016)