HC sets aside info chief’s order against university circular

Times of India: Pune: Sunday, 15 March 2015.

The Bombay high court has set aside a December 27, 2013 order by the state chief information commissioner (SCIC) that directed the Savitribai Phule Pune University to delete/correct three clauses in its circular for new reevaluation scheme and supply of photocopies of assessed answer sheets to students who apply for the same.

One of these clauses mandated students to apply for photocopies of evaluated or re-evaluated answer sheets within 10 days from the date of declaration of the results. It was argued that this clause was unfair in view of a Supreme Court ruling that provided for a 90-day period and that the other two clauses violated the Right to Information (RTI) Act provisions.

University vice-chancellor W N Gade had issued the circular on November 1, 2013 after the university management council had on September 19, 2013 approved two ordinances 184(A) and 184(B) relating to the new reevaluation scheme and supply of photocopies of assessed answer sheets.

"The (SCIC's) directions are clearly in excess of jurisdiction," Justice M S Sonak of the high court ruled in a 16-page judgment on Friday. "These are policy matters, which are within competence of academic authorities. The scope of judicial review even by a constitutional court in such matters, is very limited," the bench observed. The SCIC had no powers under the RTI Act to issue the directions against the circular issued by the vice-chancellor in exercise of powers under the MU Act, the bench .

Activist Vivek Velankar had complained to the SCIC in November 2013 that the university's circular violated the law laid down by the Supreme Court on August 9, 2011 in the CBSE vs Aditya Bandopadhyay and others case and was also in conflict with the RTI Act. His objection was also to other two clauses the examiner shall be the sole custodian of the photocopies supplied and the university shall not be responsible for failure or delay in supply of photocopies for reasons beyond its control.

The SCIC had upheld these arguments through the impugned (under challenge) order and had directed the university to delete/correct the three clauses.

The bench ruled that three clauses cannot be read in isolation. "The three clauses do not in any manner concern with or even interfere with the rights, which may otherwise be available under the RTI Act," the bench held and observed that the SCIC had misconstrued certain observations in the Aditya Bandopadhyay case while issuing the impugned order.

"There are time limits imposed upon the examiners as well as the university in the matters of revaluation. This is necessary considering the magnitude of the requests for reevaluation as also the necessity to complete the revaluation process with utmost dispatch. If the (10-day) time limit in the circular is disturbed or varied, it is possible that an applicant seeks for copies even on the 89th day after the declaration of results and further within ten days from the receipt thereof insists that his answer papers are reevaluated. This would, possibly, lead to the collapse of the entire scheme of revaluation," the bench observed.