SCC Online: New Delhi: Sunday, 6th September
2026.
“It is noteworthy that when any Rules/Bye Laws are found inconsistent with the RTI Act, 2005 then the non-obstante clause of Section 22 becomes operative.”
Central Information
Commission: In a second appeal against the demand of ₹1000 for providing a copy
of the appellant’s evaluated answer script for the FYUG 2nd Semester
Examination, 2025, Information Commissioner Sudha Rani Relangi, allowed the
appeal and set aside the impugned decision of Patharkandi College affiliated
with Assam University. Relying on Section 22, RTI Act, the Commission held that
where an answer script is sought under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI
Act), the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) can charge only the
photocopying fee prescribed under the Right to Information (Regulation of Fee
and Cost) Rules, 2012 (RTI Rules), and cannot enforce university regulations
inconsistent with the statutory fee structure.
Background:
The appellant, a student of Patharkandi College affiliated with Assam University, Silchar (a Central University established under the Central Universities Act, 2009), sought a certified photocopy of his evaluated answer script for the FYUG 2nd semester examination, 2025, in Philosophy (Paper Code PHPDSM151), after securing 35 out of 70 marks. The CPIO demanded ₹1000 for providing the answer script, and the First Appellate Authority upheld the demand on the ground that Assam University, being an autonomous institution, had prescribed the fee under its own notification. Aggrieved, the appellant filed a second appeal before the Commission.
The appellant contended that the demand violated Rule 4(a), RTI Rules, 2012, which prescribes photocopying charges at ₹2 per page, and that Section 22, RTI Act overrides inconsistent rules or regulations. The CPIO, however, maintained that the University was entitled to frame its own rules and had demanded ₹1000 pursuant to its Notification dated 18 June 2023.
The appellant also relied on CBSE v. Aditya Bandopadhyay, (2011) 8 SCC 497, in which the Supreme Court held that an evaluated answer book constitutes “information” under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, as it contains the examiner’s opinion.
The appellant further relied on Alka Matoria v. Maharaja Ganga Singh University, 2012 SCC On Line Raj 3593, where the Rajasthan High Court, on facts identical to the present case, quashed a university regulation demanding ₹1,000 for a copy of an answer book, observing that the charge appeared to be “an ill-intended attempt… to somehow discourage students from seeking certified copies of their answer books.” The Special Leave Petition against that judgment was dismissed in limine by the Supreme Court.
Analysis:
The Commission, observed that the core issue in the instant appeal was the demand of additional fees of ₹1000 by the CPIO under the Assam University Rules, which was alleged to be contrary to the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005. The CPIO, submitted that Assam University, being an autonomous body, was entitled to frame its own Rules and that the demand of ₹1000 had been made in terms of Assam University Notification No. AUK-202/8/2004 dated 18 June 2023. The CPIO further stated that the appellant had sought similar information through RTI applications previously and had paid the requisite fees without protest. It was also submitted that, being a part of the University, the CPIO was obligated to follow its Rules and bye-laws and had accordingly communicated the applicable fee to the appellant as part of the procedure followed by the University for disclosure of evaluated answer scripts to students.
At the outset, the Commission agreed with the appellant that the demand of additional fees of ₹1000 by the CPIO for providing the evaluated answer script sought under the RTI Act was not within the confines of the RTI Act and the RTI Rules. The Commission observed that although the CPIO advised the appellant to obtain a copy of the documents in accordance with the procedure prescribed under Assam University Notification No. AUK-202/8/2004 dated 18 June 2023, it is not permissible to take recourse to any other rules or regulations for supplying information or stipulating fees for providing copies of documents inconsistent with the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 and the Rules made thereunder.
“It is noteworthy that when any Rules/Bye Laws are found inconsistent with the RTI Act, 2005 then the non-obstante clause of Section 22 becomes operative.”
The Commission further found weightage in the case law cited by the appellant, namely, ICSI v. Paras Jain, Civil Appeal No. 5665 of 2014, wherein it was held that the institutional mechanism and the RTI route for obtaining answer scripts are not mutually exclusive. Where a candidate seeks the answer script under the RTI Act, the fee must be charged in accordance with the RTI Rules. Applying the aforesaid ratio, the Commission held that the CPIO was required to provide the answer script by charging photocopying charges strictly as per the RTI Rules, 2012, and cautioned the CPIO to exercise due diligence in future.
Allowing the second appeal, the Commission set aside the impugned decision of the respondent and directed the CPIO to provide the appellant’s own answer script for the FYUG 2nd Semester Examination, 2025, for paper code PHPDSM151 M, free of cost. The CPIO was directed to comply with the aforesaid direction within 2 weeks from the date of receipt of the order, under due intimation to the Commission.
[Ahmed Shakir v. The CPIO Assam University, CIC/ASUVR/A/2025/657621, decided on 6-7-2026]
“It is noteworthy that when any Rules/Bye Laws are found inconsistent with the RTI Act, 2005 then the non-obstante clause of Section 22 becomes operative.”
Background:
The appellant, a student of Patharkandi College affiliated with Assam University, Silchar (a Central University established under the Central Universities Act, 2009), sought a certified photocopy of his evaluated answer script for the FYUG 2nd semester examination, 2025, in Philosophy (Paper Code PHPDSM151), after securing 35 out of 70 marks. The CPIO demanded ₹1000 for providing the answer script, and the First Appellate Authority upheld the demand on the ground that Assam University, being an autonomous institution, had prescribed the fee under its own notification. Aggrieved, the appellant filed a second appeal before the Commission.
The appellant contended that the demand violated Rule 4(a), RTI Rules, 2012, which prescribes photocopying charges at ₹2 per page, and that Section 22, RTI Act overrides inconsistent rules or regulations. The CPIO, however, maintained that the University was entitled to frame its own rules and had demanded ₹1000 pursuant to its Notification dated 18 June 2023.
The appellant also relied on CBSE v. Aditya Bandopadhyay, (2011) 8 SCC 497, in which the Supreme Court held that an evaluated answer book constitutes “information” under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, as it contains the examiner’s opinion.
The appellant further relied on Alka Matoria v. Maharaja Ganga Singh University, 2012 SCC On Line Raj 3593, where the Rajasthan High Court, on facts identical to the present case, quashed a university regulation demanding ₹1,000 for a copy of an answer book, observing that the charge appeared to be “an ill-intended attempt… to somehow discourage students from seeking certified copies of their answer books.” The Special Leave Petition against that judgment was dismissed in limine by the Supreme Court.
Analysis:
The Commission, observed that the core issue in the instant appeal was the demand of additional fees of ₹1000 by the CPIO under the Assam University Rules, which was alleged to be contrary to the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005. The CPIO, submitted that Assam University, being an autonomous body, was entitled to frame its own Rules and that the demand of ₹1000 had been made in terms of Assam University Notification No. AUK-202/8/2004 dated 18 June 2023. The CPIO further stated that the appellant had sought similar information through RTI applications previously and had paid the requisite fees without protest. It was also submitted that, being a part of the University, the CPIO was obligated to follow its Rules and bye-laws and had accordingly communicated the applicable fee to the appellant as part of the procedure followed by the University for disclosure of evaluated answer scripts to students.
At the outset, the Commission agreed with the appellant that the demand of additional fees of ₹1000 by the CPIO for providing the evaluated answer script sought under the RTI Act was not within the confines of the RTI Act and the RTI Rules. The Commission observed that although the CPIO advised the appellant to obtain a copy of the documents in accordance with the procedure prescribed under Assam University Notification No. AUK-202/8/2004 dated 18 June 2023, it is not permissible to take recourse to any other rules or regulations for supplying information or stipulating fees for providing copies of documents inconsistent with the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 and the Rules made thereunder.
“It is noteworthy that when any Rules/Bye Laws are found inconsistent with the RTI Act, 2005 then the non-obstante clause of Section 22 becomes operative.”
The Commission further found weightage in the case law cited by the appellant, namely, ICSI v. Paras Jain, Civil Appeal No. 5665 of 2014, wherein it was held that the institutional mechanism and the RTI route for obtaining answer scripts are not mutually exclusive. Where a candidate seeks the answer script under the RTI Act, the fee must be charged in accordance with the RTI Rules. Applying the aforesaid ratio, the Commission held that the CPIO was required to provide the answer script by charging photocopying charges strictly as per the RTI Rules, 2012, and cautioned the CPIO to exercise due diligence in future.
Allowing the second appeal, the Commission set aside the impugned decision of the respondent and directed the CPIO to provide the appellant’s own answer script for the FYUG 2nd Semester Examination, 2025, for paper code PHPDSM151 M, free of cost. The CPIO was directed to comply with the aforesaid direction within 2 weeks from the date of receipt of the order, under due intimation to the Commission.
[Ahmed Shakir v. The CPIO Assam University, CIC/ASUVR/A/2025/657621, decided on 6-7-2026]
.JPG)
.JPG)
