New Delhi, A deemed university is not a "public authority" covered under the ambit of the Right to Information (RTI) Act unless it is under the control or funded by the government, the Delhi High Court said.
The court's order was passed on the petition of an RTI applicant seeking information regarding details of students, including roll number, name and father's name, who completed Master's degree in Chemistry through self-learning. distance from 2007 and 2011 from Vinayak Mission University, a deemed university.
The chief information commissioner (CIC) refused to provide the information claiming that the institute was not a "public authority" and the data belonged to its internal administration.
Stating that there was no reason to interfere with the CIC decision, Justice Subramonium Prasad noted that the RTI Act deals with entities, including non-governmental organizations, that are owned by the government, controlled or substantially financed by the government and simply Because a university is considered a university, it would not be considered a public authority under the law.
"It is not the case of the petitioner that the respondent University is a government authority or a non-governmental organization substantially funded by the government, either directly or indirectly. Therefore, it cannot be considered that the respondent University No. 3 will be a 'public authority' under Section 2(h) of the RTI Act and shall not be subject to the provisions of the RTI Act," the court said in its order.
"It has also been recently held by a full bench of the Bombay High Court... that merely because a university has been deemed to be such by virtue of a notification under Section 3 of the UGC Act, it will not be deemed to be a public authority under the Act. (RTI),” the court recorded.
The petitioner contended that, being a custodian and "public authority", UGC should be considered obliged to provide the information to it.
The court, however, observed that the information sought by the petitioner was of a "personal" nature and was exempt under the RTI Act, and has also not shown any material indicating which public interest would prevail over privacy concerns.
"In the absence of a greater public interest that justifies the disclosure of said information, this court is not willing to access the information requested by the petitioner," he opined.
"This court, therefore, finds no reason to interfere with the decision of the CIC to refuse to provide the requested information to the petitioner in both cases, i.e., that the respondent university is considered a university and is not a public authority in the absence of any material presented by the petitioner to show that the respondent university is under the direct control of the Government or funded by the Government, and secondly, the information sought will result in an unwarranted invasion of the privacy of all individuals involved and without there being any broader public interest involved which will prevail over the privacy of the persons whose information has been sought," the court held.
The court's order was passed on the petition of an RTI applicant seeking information regarding details of students, including roll number, name and father's name, who completed Master's degree in Chemistry through self-learning. distance from 2007 and 2011 from Vinayak Mission University, a deemed university.
The chief information commissioner (CIC) refused to provide the information claiming that the institute was not a "public authority" and the data belonged to its internal administration.
Stating that there was no reason to interfere with the CIC decision, Justice Subramonium Prasad noted that the RTI Act deals with entities, including non-governmental organizations, that are owned by the government, controlled or substantially financed by the government and simply Because a university is considered a university, it would not be considered a public authority under the law.
"It is not the case of the petitioner that the respondent University is a government authority or a non-governmental organization substantially funded by the government, either directly or indirectly. Therefore, it cannot be considered that the respondent University No. 3 will be a 'public authority' under Section 2(h) of the RTI Act and shall not be subject to the provisions of the RTI Act," the court said in its order.
"It has also been recently held by a full bench of the Bombay High Court... that merely because a university has been deemed to be such by virtue of a notification under Section 3 of the UGC Act, it will not be deemed to be a public authority under the Act. (RTI),” the court recorded.
The petitioner contended that, being a custodian and "public authority", UGC should be considered obliged to provide the information to it.
The court, however, observed that the information sought by the petitioner was of a "personal" nature and was exempt under the RTI Act, and has also not shown any material indicating which public interest would prevail over privacy concerns.
"In the absence of a greater public interest that justifies the disclosure of said information, this court is not willing to access the information requested by the petitioner," he opined.
"This court, therefore, finds no reason to interfere with the decision of the CIC to refuse to provide the requested information to the petitioner in both cases, i.e., that the respondent university is considered a university and is not a public authority in the absence of any material presented by the petitioner to show that the respondent university is under the direct control of the Government or funded by the Government, and secondly, the information sought will result in an unwarranted invasion of the privacy of all individuals involved and without there being any broader public interest involved which will prevail over the privacy of the persons whose information has been sought," the court held.
