Ruhs: Rajasthan High Court Ruling on Processing Fees
Significant Ruling on RTI Fees
The Rajasthan High Court has delivered a landmark ruling that prohibits the Rajasthan University of Health Sciences (RUHS) from imposing additional processing charges for providing certified copies of answer sheets under the Right to Information (RTI) Act. This decision underscores the importance of transparency and accountability in public authorities.
The case arose when Vipika, a B.Sc. Nursing student, sought certified copies of her evaluated answer books. The university initially demanded a total of ₹1225 for each answer book, which included a ₹1000 processing fee deemed illegal by the court.
Justice Dr. Pushpendra Singh Bhati stated, “The fee payable for seeking information under the Act is already specified by the statutory rules and public authorities cannot prescribe additional charges that are inconsistent with those rules.” This ruling emphasizes that the fee structure outlined in the RTI Act must be adhered to by all public institutions.
The court found that the university’s guidelines imposing the ₹1000 processing fee were contrary to the RTI Act, which aims to facilitate access to information. The ruling quashed these guidelines and directed RUHS to charge only the fees prescribed under the RTI Rules.
In addition to the processing fee, the university’s demand included ₹145 for postal charges and ₹80 for photocopying costs, calculated at ₹2 per page for 40 pages. This raised concerns about the potential discouragement of students from seeking their evaluated answer sheets.
Justice Sandeep Shah remarked, “Imposing a processing fee of ₹1000 appeared to be an attempt to discourage students from seeking certified copies of their answer books, which runs contrary to the objective of the RTI Act that aims to promote transparency and accountability in public authorities.”
The ruling aligns with several Supreme Court decisions that recognize the right of examinees to access their evaluated answer sheets under the RTI Act, reinforcing the legal framework supporting transparency in educational institutions.
The petitioner, Vipika, had challenged the university’s guidelines, leading to this significant judicial intervention. The court’s decision is expected to have a lasting impact on how universities handle RTI requests.
As the legal landscape evolves, further developments in the implementation of this ruling and its implications for other public authorities remain to be seen.
