Rajasthan High Court Ruling on RUHS Processing Fees
The Rajasthan High Court has made a significant ruling regarding the processing fees imposed by the Rajasthan University of Health Sciences (RUHS) for Right to Information (RTI) requests. The Court determined that universities cannot impose additional charges for providing certified copies of answer sheets, thereby reinforcing the principles of transparency and accessibility in education.
This decision arose from a case filed by Vipika, a B.Sc. Nursing student, who sought certified copies of her evaluated answer books. RUHS had demanded a total of ₹1225 for each answer book, which included a ₹1000 processing fee. The Court quashed this fee, stating that it was inconsistent with the provisions of the RTI Act.
The ruling was delivered in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13783/2021, where the Court emphasized that the fee structure prescribed under the RTI Act must be adhered to by public authorities. The Court noted that the RTI Act provides an overriding effect over any other law or regulation, ensuring that students have the right to access their evaluated answer sheets without facing financial barriers.
The Court’s decision highlighted that the imposition of a ₹1000 processing fee appeared to be an attempt to discourage students from seeking certified copies of their answer books. The Court referred to several Supreme Court decisions that recognized the right of examinees to access their evaluated answer sheets under the RTI Act.
In its ruling, the Court directed RUHS to charge only the fees prescribed under the RTI Rules, which includes a nominal application fee of ₹10 and a cost of ₹2 per page for copies of documents. Given that an answer book can consist of up to 40 pages, the total photocopy charges would amount to ₹80, in addition to postal charges of ₹145.
With approximately 6.5 lakh answer sheets managed by the University, the ruling is expected to have a broad impact on students seeking transparency in their academic evaluations. The Court’s decision reinforces the importance of adhering to established legal frameworks designed to protect the rights of students.
As this ruling sets a precedent, it is anticipated that other universities may also reassess their fee structures related to RTI applications. The implications of this decision could lead to increased accessibility for students across various educational institutions in Rajasthan.
Details remain unconfirmed regarding any immediate changes that RUHS may implement in response to this ruling. However, the Court’s emphasis on compliance with the RTI Act suggests that universities will need to align their practices with this legal framework moving forward.
