1 pointIf a candidate seeks information under the provisions of the Right to Information Act, then payment has to be sought under the RTI Rules. The question before the Supreme Court was which Guidelines/Rules will govern the prescription of fee for copies of answer sheets and their inspection. The Court held that while the ICSI is governed by the Companies Secretaries Act, 1980 and the Examination Committee formed under the statute prescribes a certain fee, the RTI Rules also lay down a fee structure for procurement of answer sheets. The Court held, “In our opinion, the existence of these two avenues is not mutually exclusive and it is up to the candidate to choose either of the routes. Thus, if a candidate seeks information under the provisions of the Right to Information, then payment has to be sought under the Rules therein, however, if the information is sought under the Guidelines of the appellant, then the appellant is at liberty to charge the candidates as per its guidelines.” The decision was rendered by a Bench of Justices NV Ramana and S Abdul Nazeer, which made it clear that if there are other avenues to procure answer sheets, the applicant can choose which one to route her request through. The RTI Rules entitle a student to seek inspection and certified copies of their answer scripts. When this right is exercised, Rule 4 will govern the levy of the required charges. This Rule stipulates a fee of Rs. 2 for each page of the answer script. For inspection, no fee is prescribed for the first hour. For every subsequent hour of inspection, the fee is Rs. 5 per hour. The order came in an appeal filed by the Institute of Companies Secretaries of India (ICSI) against a decision of a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court. The respondent, Advocate Paras Jain, had sought from ICSI certified copies of answer sheets and their inspection under RTI. He was charged a fee for the same as per Guideline No. 3 notified by the Statutory Council of the ICSI. As per the ICSI Guidelines, the fee for the supply of certified copies was Rs. 500 per answer sheet, and the charge for inspection was Rs. 450 per answer book. Download the decision here.15222_2014_Order_11-Apr-2019.pdf
1 pointDivya, who was lauded by the Commission for making “constructive use of RTI for larger public interest” and for scripting “one of the success stories of the RTI”, had submitted before the Commission that the villagers were facing a serious problem because of the difference in spelling used for the name of the village by the post office and the revenue authorities. The CIC reprimanded the Department of Posts for insisting without any logic that the name was actually “Harha” and for demanding that the villagers get it changed in all their other documents accordingly. In his order, Acharyulu held that the Hadha post office was “duty-bound” to write the correct spelling of every town or village, because a name is the only way of identification and it should therefore be in sync the with revenue and other records. Subsequently, R.K. Mishra of National Informatics Centre, Unnao submitted to the Commission that as per the directions of the CIC, the Postmaster General, Kanpur on July 6 ordered the change in spelling of Harha to the correct “Hadha” in accordance with all the revenue and other official records. He also submitted that a new nameboard has been fixed with the correct spelling in the post office.
This leaderboard is set to Kolkata/GMT+05:30