Today, On 28th June, The Delhi High Court ruled that deemed universities are not subject to the Right to Information (RTI) Act unless they are government-controlled. This decision came in response to a petition filed by an RTI applicant requesting information on students, including their roll numbers, names, and fathers’ names, who completed an MSc in Chemistry through distance learning between 2007 and 2011 from Vinayak Mission University.
New Delhi: In a recent ruling, the Delhi High Court declared that deemed universities are not classified as “public authorities” under the Right to Information (RTI) Act unless they are controlled or financed by the government.
This judgment issued following a petition by an RTI applicant who requested detailed information about students, including roll numbers, names, and fathers’ names, who completed their MSc in Chemistry through distance learning from Vinayak Mission University between 2007 and 2011.
Read Also: Delhi HC: Expansion of ‘Civil Judge Jurisdiction’ in Delhi District Court
The Chief Information Commissioner (CIC) rejected the request, citing that the institution did not qualify as a “public authority” and that the requested data was part of its internal administration.
Justice Subramonium Prasad affirmed the Chief Information Commissioner’s (CIC) decision, stating there was no basis to interfere. He noted that the Right to Information (RTI) Act pertains to entities, including non-government organizations, that are owned, controlled, or significantly funded by the government.
Simply being recognized as a university does not make an institution a public authority under this legislation.
The court clarified,
“It is not the Petitioner’s claim that the Respondent University is a government authority or a non-government organization substantially financed by the government, either directly or indirectly. Hence, the Respondent No. 3 university cannot be considered a ‘public authority’ under Section 2(h) of the RTI Act and is not subject to its provisions.”
The Delhi High Court referenced a recent decision by a Full Bench of the Bombay High Court, which ruled that merely being recognized as a university through a notification under Section 3 of the UGC Act does not make it a public authority under the RTI Act.
The petitioner argued that the University Grants Commission (UGC), as the custodian and a “public authority,” should be required to provide the requested information.
However, the court observed that the information sought was “personal” in nature and exempt under the RTI Act. The petitioner also failed to present any evidence showing a public interest that would outweigh privacy concerns.
The court concluded,
“In the absence of any larger public interest justifying the disclosure of such information, this court is not inclined to accede to the information sought by the Petitioner.”
The Delhi High Court affirmed the CIC’s decision, finding no reason to intervene. The court highlighted two primary reasons.
The court ruled,
“Firstly, the respondent university, as a deemed university, does not qualify as a public authority under the RTI Act because the petitioner did not present any evidence that the university is either under direct government control or funded by the government. Secondly, providing the requested information would lead to an unwarranted invasion of privacy for the individuals concerned, and there is no significant public interest that justifies overriding their privacy,”
This judgment reinforces the importance of examining the specific relationship between the government and an institution before determining its obligations under the RTI Act. It underscores the principle that not all educational institutions, even those with deemed status, fall under the definition of public authorities unless there is a demonstrable connection to government funding or control.