The Hans India: New Delhi: Tuesday,
October 11, 2016.
An
information request sought list of appropriate education programmes of comparable
quality specified or approved by the UGC for the purpose of career advancement
scheme etc, and 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 UGC.
Under
Secretary and PIO Satish Kumar has simply stated, “the UGC does not have
information on the queries.” First Appellate Authority Dr (Mrs) Renu Batra,
Joint Secretary, as a responsible officer should have considered what was asked
at least. She simply declared that in her “considered view the reply of PIO was
satisfactory.” It reached the CIC in second
appeal.
There is a
right to information provision within the UGC Act in Section 12 (h)&(i).
Section 12 gives general power to determine and maintain the standards of
teaching, examination and research.
Section 12 of UGC Act says:
“It shall be
the general duty of the Commission to take, in consultation with the
Universities or other bodies concerned, all such steps as it may think fit for
the promotion and co-ordination of University education and for the
determination and maintenance of standards of teaching, examination and research
in Universities, and for the purpose of performing its functions under this
Act, the Commission may:
(h)collect
information on all such matters relating to University education in India and
other countries as it thinks fit and make the same available to any University;
(i)require a University to furnish it with
such information as may be needed relating to the financial position of the
University or the studies in the various branches of learning undertaken in
that University, together with all the rules and regulations relating to the
standards of teaching and examination in that University respecting each of
such branches of learning”
Thus, under
Section 12 of UGC Act read with RTI Act 2005, UGC has a duty to collect and
provide information to the citizens seeking it. In 1984, the UGC Act was
amended and powers of Regulation of fees and prohibition of donations in
certain cases were added as Section 12 A(1).
Section 12
(3) says: Where regulations of the nature referred to in sub-section (2) have
been made in relation to any course of study, no college providing for such
course of study shall:
a)
levy or charge fees in respect of any matter other than a
matter specified in such regulations;
b)
levy or charge any fees in excess of the scale of fees
specified in such regulations, or
c)
accept, either directly or indirectly, any payment
otherwise than by way of fees; or any donation of gift (whether in cash or
kind), from, or in relation to, any student in connection with his admission
to, and prosecution of, such course of study.
(4) …the
Commission may, with the previous approval of the Central Government, pass an
order prohibiting such college from presenting any students then undergoing
such course of study therein to any university for the award of the
qualification concerned.
Section 14
says: If any University grants affiliation in respect of any course of study to
any college referred to in subsection (5) of section 12A in contravention of
the provisions of that sub-section or fails within a reasonable time to comply
with any recommendation made by the Commission under section 12 or section 13,
or contravenes the provision of any rule made under clause (f) or clause (g) of
sub-section (2) of section 25, or of any regulation made under clause (e) or
clause (f) or clause (g) of section 26, the Commission, after taking into
consideration the cause, if any, shown by the University for Such failure or contraventions may
withhold from the University the grants proposed to be made out of the Fund of
the Commission.
As per
Section 12 and 12A, the UGC can regulate the standards and the fee prescribed
for a programme resulting in award of degree. If a degree or programme is
objected to by the UGC, any University or institution cannot award that degree,
and if it still awards, it is an offence under Section 24.
Section 24
empowers UGC to impose penalties: Whoever contravenes the provisions of section
22 or section 23 shall be punishable with fine which may extend to one thousand
rupees, and if the person contravening is an association or other body of
individuals, every member of such association or other body who knowingly or
wilfully authorises or permits the contravention shall be punishable with fine
which may extend to one thousand rupees.
The UGC
emblem contains a motto sentence in Sanskrit, “jnaan vijnaan vimukthaye (=Knowledge
liberates), which also imposes a duty to provide at least information, if not
the ‘knowledge’. Information in the form of ‘clarification’ also liberates the
appellants under RTI Act from certain doubts.
UGC being an
academic regulatory has statutory duty to inform/educate the people about the
courses/degrees and their validity. It
is the core function and power of the UGC to prescribe standards and recognise
universities/institutions and their courses, and thus they have a
responsibility to clarify. This is such
clarification, that none other than UGC can give.
The
Commission considers this as a policy-deficit in public authority exposed by
such RTI applications. The RTI Act mandates UGC under section 4(1)(c)&(d)
to voluntarily disclose such aspects of their educational policy to the people
affected including the appellant in this case.
In fact, the UGC has to understand the doubts of such students or
parents and recognise the need for clarification arising out of such RTI
applications and prepare the FAQs accordingly.
Duty of
UGC
The UGC being
an academic regulatory has statutory duty under Section 4(1)(c) & (d) of
RTI Act to inform/educate the people about the courses/degrees and their
validity as mandated by law discussed above.
The UGC cannot forget that they recognise universities/institutions and
their courses after examining the compliance with prescribed standards. Though
it appears to be technically right according to Section 2(f), sheltering it
under this will leave student community in confusion regarding validity of a
course.
The increase
in the number of RTI applications based on doubts reflects negatively on the
public authority leading to an inference that the UGC is not properly communicating
to the people. The RTI Act mandates
under section 4(1)(c) & (d) UGC to voluntarily disclose such aspects of
educational policy to the affected people including the appellant in this case.
CIC under section 19(8)(a)(iv) required the public authority to make necessary
changes in their practice and under 19(8)(a)(iii) publish this clarification as
information in the form of FAQ.
Enforceability
of Section 4 through other sections
Public
authorities generally plead that Section 4 is not directly enforceable by the
Commission. But the information sought in this appeal is supposed to be
voluntarily disclosed under Section 4 of RTI Act. They denied when same was
sought under Section 3. A citizen’s RTI request necessitates enforcement of
right by the Commission.
Thus the UGC
or any public authority cannot refuse to give clarifications if it is part of
their duty. Section 4(1)(b), (C) and (d) will become enforceable and it has
every authority to initiate penal proceedings under Section 20, if the
information disclosable under three sub clauses of Section 4 was sought under
an RTI application under Section 3 read with Section 6 of RTI Act.
CIC directed
the PIO to show-cause why penalty should not be imposed for refusing to inform
and abdication of responsibility both under UGC Act and RTI Act. (based on
decision in CIC/CC/A/2014/001770-SA in Ram Kishan Sharma v. PIO, UGC on 27th
Sept 2016)
.JPG)
.JPG)
