Rs 10 vs Rs 1,000: Why Rajasthan High Court struck down this university’s RTI Fee in student’s favour

After analysing judgments passed on the issue at hand, Justices Pushpendra Singh Bhatti and Sandeep Shah said not an “iota of doubt” was left to hold that charging of the fee by the university “cannot be justified and the same is rather in direct violation of the RTI Act and the Rules of 2012”.

Ruling

“Writ petition is allowed. The guidelines…as amended later on by way of the decision of the Board of Management…are quashed and set aside to the extent of charging a processing fee of Rs 1,000 per application. As regards processing charge, the respondent University shall be required to provide the necessary information after charging the fee as contemplated under the Rules of 2012 and not beyond that,” the verdict authored by Justice Shah of the Rajasthan High Court held.

The bench rules in favour of the student after holding that the university’s decision to charge fee for answer scripts was ‘arbitrary’.

Student’s contention

• Petitioner was pursuing her BSc Nursing course from the university and had failed in a couple of subjects, namely, Midwifery Obstetrical Nursing and Community Health Nursing-II.
• She applied seeking the certified copy of her answer books for the subjects under the RTI Act and deposited the requisite fees.
• In response, the university on February 2, 2021, demanded Rs 1000 per answer-book as processing fee and Rs 80 in addition to Rs 145, totalling to Rs 1,225.
• Aggrieved, she moved the Rajasthan High Court, calling it “direct derogation” to the provisions of the RTI Act and the rules.

University’s stand

• Taking support of Section 7 (disposal of request) of the RTI Act, it argued that it is free to charge, i.e., a further fee, representing the cost of providing the information.
• Charges “duly” decided in the meeting of the Board of Management in which the initial processing charge of Rs 2,000 was reduced to Rs 1,000 on December 1, 2014, which was approved on December 20, the same year.
• University referred to a 2018 circular of the state government based on the legal opinion obtained from the Law Department and said that, though under the RTI Act, charges are fixed, under special rules or an Act, different charges can be imposed.
• Requirement to pay salaries to three persons contractually hired for the job, as around 6.5 lakh answer sheets are stored in the university, of which every year around 350 applications are received seeking the certified copy of the answer sheets.
• Calculating the salary paid to the employees annually, being Rs 3.60 lakh, being divided by the number of copies, a sum of Rs1,028 arrived at and therefore, the processing fee of Rs 1,000 is justified and does not call for any interference by the Rajasthan High Court.

Findings

• The RTI Rules, 2012, were promulgated while exercising the powers under Section 27 (power to make rules by appropriate government) of the RTI Act.
• Rules 3 and 4 dealt with “application fee” and “fees for providing information”, respectively.
• Rule 3 fixes the cap of Rs 10 as the application fee, which is to be accompanied by the application.
• There is a fixed amount, which has been determined by the Central government in its wisdom, for the purpose of filing an application or for the purpose of processing an application.
• As far as the fee with regard to supplying of information in consonance with the RTI Act is concerned, the field is already occupied by the Rules of 2012, wherein the fee has been specified even for the application and for providing information.
• The very objective of the RTI Act makes it clear that it has been enacted for the dissemination of information to promote transparency and accountability in the working of every public authority, and also with the purpose of combating corruption by way of providing information to the informed citizenry and transparency of the information, which has been treated as vital for the survival of democracy.
• Provisions of the RTI Act will override any provisions made in the regulations/guidelines of the university as the application is being provided within the four corners and under the provisions of the RTI Act.
• The fee fixed by the respondents for processing of the application is ex facie in conflict with the provisions of the RTI Act and the Rules framed thereunder, and the same thus cannot be sustained.
• As far as the accompanying fee along with the application is concerned, special provision has been made under Section 6 of the RTI Act and a corresponding provision with regard to what shall be the application fee has clearly been provided under the Rules of 2005, which was later on repealed by the Rules of 2012.
• When the Act and the rules occupy the field, providing separate guidelines under the RTI Act which are in conflict with the provisions of the RTI Act and the Rules of 2012, since charging a fee of Rs 1,000 for processing the application irrespective of the charge of Rs 10 fixed under the Rules, is ex facie arbitrary.

Legal representation

The nursing student was represented by advocates Rajak Khan and Sarwar Khan
Rajasthan University Of Health Sciences, Jaipur was represented by advocate Pukhraj Servi.