BHOPAL : The State Information Commission, taking a strong view of the Vikram University denying access to his answer-sheet to a student under the RTI, has not only ordered the varsity to provide the desired document to the appellant but also issued a show-cause notice to the Public Information Officer (PIO) of the varsity, seeking his personal appearance to decide on why penal action should not be taken against him.
The PIO was asked to appear before the Commission on November 24 but he did not turn up and the hearing was adjourned to a further date.
On September 6, 2013, Bhagwati Lal Patidar, a student of BSc in the University, sought a certified copy of his Mathematics answer-sheet under the RTI.
As per section 22 of the RTI Act, 2005, varsities are bound to provide certified copies of the answer-sheets to the students. The Supreme Court, in its order in the case of CBSE versus Aditya Bandopadhyaya (2011) has re-iterated that, “Even if it goes against its rules and regulations, the examining body is bound to allow the examinees to inspect their answer-sheets and provide a certified copy thereof”.
But the varsity refused to provide the copy, quoting a January 6, 2010 decision of the co-ordination committee of universities, wherein it was said that if the copies are provided, “it would create legal problems”.
Free Press has copies of all relevant orders.
Patidar then moved the State Information Commission in appeal. After hearing the case, the Commission, on July 10, 2015, ordered the varsity to provide the copy. It rubbished the varsity’s contention that as the copies were lakhs in number, it was impossible to keep them safely and that they were destroyed after a period of six months from the date of examination. The Commission pointed out that as the “PIO had informed the appellant on September 6, 2013 that he can inspect the copy, it is clear that the document was in the possession of the varsity”. The Commission ordered the varsity to locate the answer-sheet and provide it to the appellant within a period of 15 days. It also sought an explanation from the PIO.
In his written explanation, submitted to the Commission in the next hearing, the PIO again quoted the same decision of the co-ordination committee. Rejecting the argument, the Commission said that it was clear that the copy was not provided to the appellant despite the fact it was available and decided to take action against the PIO.
Incidentally, the Vikram University is not the only one indulging in this patently illegal activity. Other universities are doing the same.
