DOES the Maharashtra Right to Information (MRTI) Act empower a candidate to demand copies of his answer book in an examination conducted by a public body of the state government? He surely can, irrespective of whatever the rules and procedure prescribed by that public body otherwise.
There is no reason why he shouldn’t. The MRTI Act empowers any citizen to demand any information from a government department or a public body subject, of course, to some exemptions.
First of all, let us find out if a copy of an answer book in an examination conducted by a public authority falls within the definition of ‘information’ under the Act.
For the MRTI Act ‘‘information means information relating to any matter in respect of the affairs of the Government and of any public authority and includes a copy of any record in the form of a document, diskette, floppy or any other electronic mode.’’
A university or the Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Examination is a public authority under the state government. An answer paper is a ‘‘record in the form of a document.’’
Secondly, let us examine each exemption and ask ourselves if that applies to an answer paper.
Will its disclosure ‘‘prejudicially affect the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security or interests of the State, relation with foreign State or lead to incitement of an offence?’’ Not even remotely.
Has its disclosure ‘‘expressly forbidden to be published by any court of law or tribunal or the disclosure of which may constitute contempt of court?’’ This has not been ‘‘expressly forbidden’’ and surely there is no question of any contempt of law unless of course there is a specific order in a particular case.
Will it ‘‘cause a breach of privilege of Parliament or the State Legislature?’’ Of course, not.
Does it fall under the categories of ‘‘commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party?’’ Or is it something available with the public authority from a person ‘‘in his fiduciary relationship.’’ No way.
Is it part of the ‘‘service record of a person’’ ? Not all.
Has it been received by the public authority ‘‘in confidence from foreign government or international organization?’’ Not even remotely.
Will its disclosure ‘‘endanger the life or physical safety of any person? ’’ No question. And how will a public authority prove this if it ever decides to take shelter under this exemption?
Has its disclosure been prohibited under the provisions of the Official Secrets Act, 1923? That is absurd.
Will its disclosure ‘‘impede the process of investigation or prosecution of offenders?’’ That is rather going to far.
And finally, does it relate to ‘‘personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual’’? How can this exemption apply when the candidate is demanding copies of his own answer papers?
If it falls under the definition of ‘information’ and if no exemption prohibits its disclosure, there is no way a public body can deny giving photocopies of answer papers under the MRTI at 50 paise per page as prescribed by the MRTI Rules.
This holds good even if that public authority may have no objection in principle to giving copies of answer papers but has enforced its own procedure.
The access to information is a superior law and the MRTI Act, like any other legislations on the subject elsewhere in the world, has a provision that solemnly declares: ‘‘The provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding the State Government may, by notification in the official gazette make rules to carry out the purposes of the Act anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law made by the State Legislature or any rules, regulations or order made thereunder.’’
So, the provisions of this Act over-ride those of any other state laws, rules, regulations et al. A university may have its own procedure in force, but that does not prevent a candidate from demanding photocopies of his answer papers under the MRTI.
This is precisely the position taken by Mukesh Ram Munjankar against the Nagpur University.
According to the documents sent by Munjankar to social activist Anna Hazare, he made an application under MRTI to the Public Information Officer (PIO) of the Nagpur University on June 19, 2004, demanding photocopies of his answer books B Com (Marathi medium) examination of Nagpur University conducted in March 2004.
His request was rejected by the PIO on the grounds that provision exists for obtaining photo copies of answer books by following a procedure prescribed in university.
Munjankar filed an appeal before the vice-chancellor who also functions as the appellate authority under the MRTI Act. Instead of being called for a hearing by the appellate authority, all he received was a rejection from the PIO for the second time. That was strange.
In absence of any reply to his appeal, Munjankar filed the second appeal under the MRTI Act before Lokayukta. The matter was passed to the Upa-Lokayukta who rejected the appeal on the technical grounds that a second appeal can be entertained only after first appeal has been decided by the appellate authority. But at the same time, the Upa-Lokayukta directed the vice-chancellor to decide the first appeal at the earliest and warned him that he was expected to abide by the provisions of the MRTI and a breach would be viewed rather seriously.
Accordingly, the vice-chancellor slated the hearing on December 30, 2004. Munjankar remained absent but faxed a submission arguing that it was his constitutional right to get the information under the MRTI Act. The information sought is not falling under any exclusion clause. It is therefore incumbent on the PIO to supply information to him within stipulated time of 15 working days or face penalty and disciplinary action.
The vice-chancellor, however, rejected the appeal, upholding the contention of the PIO that there already exists a procedure for obtaining answer books and Munjankar can follow that instead of demanding copies under the MRTI.
Munjankar then filed the second appeal before Lokayukta and argued:
He has every right to demand the information under the MRTI Act irrespective of any other procedure prescribed by the university. Since no exemption applies to his requisition under the MRTI, the PIO has failed in his duty to supply the information and is therefore liable to be penalised and punished.
Demanding the information by using the provisions of the MRTI Act is his fundamental right, which cannot be denied.
Besides, the university procedure is unreliable.
Under the procedure prescribed by the university, photo copies of only two answer papers can be supplied and not more. He needed copies of five answer papers.
The fees have to be deposited in his own college along with the form, within 12 days of result. A request is not entertained later, whereas he can requisition the same document under the MRTI anytime later.
The university rarely follows its own procedure of supplying photo copies within 25 days of the application. There have been numerous instances, many reported by the media, where candidates have not received copies of answer books for last three years. In a majority of cases, answer books are not received for at least five to six months. Under the MRTI, it is obligatory for the authority to furnish the information in 15 working days.
The university demands Rs 300 per paper to be deposited for photocopy of each answer paper. (Under the MRTI Act one gets a photocopy at the rate of 50 paise per page.) However, he concedes that even in response to his requisition under the MRTI, the PIO at the most could have levied the fees prescribed by the university but could never have denied him the information.
The Lokayukta has informed the appellant that he will be heard at Nagpur during the former’s next visit there.
pmkardaley@expressindia.com