Jump to content

CIC lands in court battle with BHU

Recommended Posts


NEW DELHI: Central Information Commission's directive to Banaras Hindu University to admit a student in MPEd course and slapping it with a penalty of Rs 25,000 has landed the information watchdog in an unsavoury court battle, with questions being raised whether it had the powers of a judicial court beyond the ambit of RTI Act.


BHU has flatly refused to obey the CIC's admission diktat while Allahabad High Court has stayed the penalty. And the case is mired in personal allegations going back and forth. Under a cloud is more than the legality of information commissioner O P Kejariwal's admission-and-penalty order, as it is alleged to be motivated by his 'bitter experience' with BHU before joining the elite commission. It is alleged that Kejariwal was denied a position in the university for which he had lobbied hard and the order was a result of his personal pique. While Kejariwal denied all "personal allegations," he admitted to TOI that the order may be an "error in semantics."


The controversy, rooted in the CIC ordering BHU to admit a student, Dhananjay Tripathi, in MPEd, arises out of the death of his friend and fellow student Yogesh Rai, allegedly due to medical negligence. It led to protests from students asking for a copy of an internal inquiry into the charges of medical negligence. Tripathi filed a plea under RTI.


During the hearing at CIC, Tripathi was denied admission in MPEd course for which he had applied. He charged BHU with victimisation for taking up Rai's case. Kejariwal dispatched an official to look into the charges and, based on his report, on November 9, 2006, passed the now-contested order, directing BHU to admit Tripathi immediately with complete attendance after having earlier slapped the penalty.


Can the CIC order admission into a university? Kejariwal concedes, "It may be an error in semantics." He, however, justified the order, "Seeing the way BHU tried to scuttle the information process convinced us to direct them to admit the applicant."


BHU challenged Kejariwal's order in the high court with personal allegations. As it emerged, the former CEO of Prasar Bharati was interested in being with BHU after quitting as director, Nehru Memorial Museum. He lobbied for it and prepared a case whereby he would donate collections of an Indologist, Fred Pinn, bequeathed to him, for a lifetime post. Well known space scientist U R Rao too put in a good word for him.

CIC lands in court battle with BHU-India-NEWS-The Times of India

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Similar Content

    • crusader
      By crusader
      I want to know that I have got information from Nagar nigam, Can I use it as an evidence in the court of law? What are the provisions related to that?
    • Shrawan
      By Shrawan
      Central Information Commission


      Decision No.292/IC(A)/2006
      F. No.CIC/MA/A/2006/00588


      Dated, the 21st September, 2006


      Name of the Appellant : Sh. Sharabh Dubey, 11/7 Civil Lines, Kanpur –208 001. (U.P.)
      Name of the Public Authority: The British India Corporation Limited, 14/136 Civil Lines, P.B. 77, Kanpur-208 001.
      Facts of the Case:

      The appellant is an employee of the respondent. He was transferred to another Unit of the company. The office order was challenged by him in the Court, which adjudicated on the matter. Subsequently, he has filed a few more petitions on service related matters in the Court. In this backdrop, he has sought documents relating to the legal opinion obtained by the respondent, file notings by the senior officials on the issue of transfer, letters/correspondence with other officials, etc.
      The CPIO has denied the information and sought exemption u/s 8(1)(d) & (g) of the Act.
      The case was heard on 12.9.06. The appellant could not be present. The CPIO and the appellate authority were present. In the course of hearing, the CPIO showed a copy of the petition filed by the appellant in the Court, whic hcontained almost all the documents asked for by him. The CPIO contended that the documents asked for by the appellant relate to the various petitions filed by him in the Court. He, therefore, pleaded that the disclosure of the documents might adversely affect the disputed cases. Hence, the relevant documents are treated as confidential.
      Commission’s Decision:

      There is a dispute between the appellant and the company on service matters, including transfer of the appellant to another unit. The matter is pending before the Court for adjudication. There is every possibility that the appellant would get opportunity for his effective defense. The information sought is in the interest of the seeker. And, as such, there is no overriding public interest, u/s 8(1)(j) of the Act, for disclosure of the information.
      The appeal is therefore dismissed.

      (Prof. M.M. Ansari)
      Information Commissioner


  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use & Privacy Policy