Live Law: New Delhi: Friday,
October 14, 2016.
The Central
Information Commission (CIC) in Ram Kishan Sharma v. PIO, UGC, has directed the
University Grants Commission (UGC) to make available information sought by a
petitioner regarding a course offered by IGNOU, as it refused to do so under
the garb of section 2 (f) of the RTI Act, 2005.
Central Information
Commissioner Prof M Sridhar Acharyulu (Madabhushi Sridhar) said he was
surprised by how public authority UGC refused to clarify the doubt of the
petitioner by taking shelter under technical interpretation of right, according
to section 2(f) of RTI Act and iterated that the RTI Act must be read with the
UGC Act.
Ram Kishan
Sharma had sought for the following directions:
a)
details and list of appropriate education programmes of
comparable quality specified or approved by the UGC for the purpose of career
advancement scheme etc, and
b)
whether training programme for ‘script development for
preparing audio video tapes’ conducted by IGNOU, New Delhi, is specified or
approved by the UGC as appropriate continuing education programme of comparable
quality as mentioned in career advancement scheme of the UGC.
Under
Secretary and PIO Mr. Satish Kumar stated that the information couldn’t be
provided and shielded this response under section 2(f) RTI Act. After not
getting relief from either the PIO of First Appellate Authority, Ram Kishan
Sharma approached the Commission.
The CIC
observed that the clarification sought could be done by UGC or IGNOU, but they
did not write to each other on this question. Section 12 of UGC Act read with
RTI Act 2005 clarifies that the UGC has a duty to collect and provide
information to the citizens seeking it. The CIC reminded that the UGC emblem
contains a motto sentence in Sanskrit, “jnaan vijnaan vimukthaye (Knowledge
liberates)’, thus imposing a duty to provide at least information, if not the
‘knowledge’. It observed that ‘information’ in the form of ‘clarification’ also
liberates those asking for information under RTI Act from certain doubts. The
CIC held that the UGC being an academic regulatory has statutory duty to inform/educate
the people about the courses/degrees and their validity. It was agreed by the
CIC that any conclusion without reading the enactments of the RTI Act and UGC
Act together would lead to undue denial that amounts to abdication of the UGC’s
duty to inform, which was prescribed by two statutes that being its basic
function. Such lapses were considered as a policy-deficit in public authority
exposed by such RTI applications.
The RTI Act
mandates the UGC under section 4(1)(c)&(d) to voluntarily disclose such
aspects of their educational policy to the people affected, including
interested parties such as Ram Kishan Sharma in this case. Further reflecting
on the duties of the UGC and its efficiency in handling these, the Commission
said:
“…the
UGC has to understand the doubts of such students or parents and recognize the
need for clarification arising out of such RTI applications and prepare the
FAQs accordingly. The increase in the number of RTI applications seeking such
clarifications reflects on the public authority leading to an inference that
the UGC is not properly communicating to the people about the validity of
courses and degrees.”
The
Commissioner also warned that refusal to provide the clarifications would
compel the Commission to initiate penal proceedings and also direct the public
authority to pay compensation because appellant’s RTI request was a necessity
arising out of non-performance of its duty under section 4(1)(c) & (d) of
the RTI Act.
It was noted
that public authorities generally plead that section 4 is not directly
enforceable by the Commission. However, the Commission emphasised upon the fact
that information sought in this appeal was supposed to be voluntarily disclosed
under Section 4 of RTI Act. The CIC iterated that a citizen’s RTI request
necessitates enforcement of right by the Commission. Thus, the UGC or any
public authority could not have refused to give clarifications, if it is part
of their duty. Under such circumstances, the Commission held that the Section
4(1)(b),(C) and (d) will become enforceable and it has every authority to
initiate penal proceedings under Section 20, as the information was disclosable
under these three sub clauses of Section 4 in this RTI application.
The CIC said
that dutifully, the policy of the UGC must include providing clarifications for
such genuine academic doubts. The CIC pointed out that although technically
section 2(f) is held true, sheltering such doubts of petitioners under this
section will leave the student community in confusion regarding validity of a
course. The Commission said not informing the validity of a course amounts to
abdication of their duty to inform, as that duty was prescribed by the statute
and that is their basic function.
The
Commission issued the following direction after hearing the case:
1.
The Commission directs the respondent authority not to
refuse to give clarifications. The information sought not is not prohibited by
any exemption and refusal to respond to these would attract penal proceedings
under section 20.
2.
PIO Mr. Satish Kumar was issued a show-cause as to why
penalty should not be imposed against him for refusing to inform and abdication
of responsibility both under the UGC Act and the RTI Act.
3.
Directed the UGC to explain why it should not be ordered
to pay compensation/costs to Ram Kishan Sharma, within 21 days from date of
receipt of this order.
4.
The PIO was directed to file a compliance report
complying with the directions in this order within 30 days from date of receipt
of this order.
Thus, with
these directions, the second appeal was disposed of accordingly.
.JPG)
.JPG)
