CIC: RTI Answer Script Fee Ruling Upholds Act's Supremacy

• A student sought an evaluated answer script from a university.
• The university demanded a fee of ₹1,000 for providing the document.
• The Central Information Commission (CIC) ruled that the Right to Information Act, 2005, overrides conflicting university rules.
• The CIC emphasized that Section 22's non-obstante clause makes the RTI Act supreme when institutional rules are inconsistent.

The Central Information Commission's resolution in this matter firmly established that the provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005, take precedence over any conflicting institutional regulations.

A recent determination by the Central Information Commission India has underscored the supremacy of the Right to Information Act, 2005, particularly concerning fees levied for accessing academic records. The case originated from a student's request to obtain their evaluated answer script, a common demand among those seeking transparency in academic assessments. In response to this legitimate request, the university involved stipulated a payment of ₹1,000 for the provision of the document. This significant fee became the focal point of a dispute, ultimately requiring adjudication by the nation's highest information body.

The student's pursuit of their evaluated answer sheet RTI highlights a recurring tension between institutional regulations and an individual's right to information. Universities often have their own internal rules and fee structures for administrative services, including the disclosure of examination materials. However, the application of the RTI Act 2005 to such requests introduces a different legal framework, designed to ensure public access to information held by public authorities. The discrepancy between the university's fee demand and the principles of the RTI Act necessitated a definitive ruling from the Central Information Commission.

The Central Information Commission's resolution in this matter firmly established that the provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005, take precedence over any conflicting institutional regulations. Central to this determination is Section 22 of the RTI Act, which contains a crucial non-obstante clause. This specific legal phrasing dictates that the RTI Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law for the time being in force or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any law other than this Act.

Consequently, the CIC ruled that where any university rules or bye-laws are found to be inconsistent with the overarching principles and stipulations of the RTI Act, 2005, the powerful RTI non-obstante clause of Section 22 becomes fully operative. This means that internal university policies, including those dictating a university exam script RTI fee, cannot supersede the statutory rights granted under the RTI Act. The ruling effectively clarifies that the fee structure for providing information, such as an evaluated answer script, must align with the RTI Act's provisions, not with potentially higher charges set by individual institutions.

This CIC RTI answer script fee ruling carries significant implications for both information seekers and public authorities across India. For students and other citizens, it reinforces their right to access information from public bodies, including educational institutions, without being subjected to prohibitive or arbitrary fees. The decision ensures that the spirit of transparency and accountability, central to the RTI Act, is upheld, preventing institutions from using excessive charges as a barrier to information disclosure.

For universities and other public authorities, the ruling serves as a critical reminder that their internal regulations must always conform to the Right to Information Act, 2005. Any existing rules that impose fees inconsistent with the RTI Act for providing information, such as an evaluated answer sheet RTI, are legally superseded. This necessitates a review of current practices and fee schedules to ensure full compliance with the statutory framework, particularly in light of Section 22's overriding power. The Central Information Commission's clear stance reinforces the Act's role as the paramount legal instrument for information access in India.

Lawyers advising educational institutions or individuals seeking information under RTI should note that internal university rules regarding fees for evaluated answer scripts are superseded by the RTI Act, 2005, due to Section 22's non-obstante clause. Compliance officers must review fee structures for information disclosure to ensure alignment with the RTI Act.

Source: Reporting based on a recent SCC Times article.