Ruhs: Rajasthan High Court Ruling on Processing Fees

Rajasthan High Court Ruling on RUHS Processing Fees

The Rajasthan High Court has made a significant ruling that prohibits universities, including 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 educational institutions.

The ruling came after a petition was filed by Vipika, a B.Sc. Nursing student, who sought certified copies of her evaluated answer books. The university had 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, who presided over the case, emphasized that the fee structure prescribed under the RTI Act must be adhered to by public authorities. The court found that the imposition of a ₹1000 processing fee appeared to be an attempt to discourage students from seeking access to their evaluated answer sheets.

The court quashed the university’s guidelines that mandated the ₹1000 fee and directed RUHS to charge only the fees specified under the RTI Rules. According to the RTI Act, the application fee is set at ₹10, with additional charges of ₹2 per page for copies of documents.

In this case, the average answer book contained approximately 40 pages, leading to photocopy charges calculated at ₹80, along with ₹145 for postal charges. The total amount demanded by the university was significantly higher than what is legally permissible.

The court’s decision aligns with several Supreme Court rulings that recognize the right of examinees to access their evaluated answer sheets under the RTI Act. This ruling is expected to have a far-reaching impact on how universities handle RTI requests, promoting greater transparency.

The RTI Act aims to foster transparency and accountability in public authorities, ensuring that students and citizens can access information without undue financial burdens. The court’s ruling reinforces the notion that public authorities cannot impose additional charges that conflict with statutory rules.

As this ruling sets a precedent, it remains to be seen how RUHS and other universities will adjust their policies in compliance with the court’s directives. Further developments in this area are anticipated as educational institutions respond to the ruling.

Details remain unconfirmed regarding any immediate changes that RUHS might implement in light of this decision.