R. Natrajan v. University Grants Commission
In the Central Information Commission
CIC/RM/A/2014/001293-SA
Before M Sridhar Acharyulu, Information Commissioner
Decided on November 24, 2015

Relevancy of the case: RTI application regarding non-recognition of degrees by a University wherein the appellant had filed a case under Section 420 IPC r/w Section 74 of the IT Act, 2000

Statutes and Provisions Involved

• The Information Technology Act, 2000 (Section 74)
• The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Section 406, 465, 468, 471, 420)

Relevant Facts of the Case

• The appellant sought information regarding a complaint made by a student against Vinayaka Missions University.
• The information sought was regarding whether a student made any complaint, the subsequent correspondence and decision taken, whether the UGC (University Grants Commission) can work as a regulator for this act, and what action had the UGC taken for the Madras High Court judgement.  
• The PIO (Public Information Officer) and the first appellate authority stated that no complaint was received, and the appellant was directed to (VMRF) Vinayaka Mission’s Research Foundation.
• The appellant filed a complaint against VMRF where medical students complained that their degrees after four years of studying were not recognized. The appellant also complained about the delay in evaluating his thesis for the award of a PhD. 
• Further, the appellant alleged that the University had charged 40 lakhs from 42 students against the declared fees of 3.5 lakhs. Also, they sought information regarding the fund-raising method adopted for the increase in college infrastructure. 
• The appellant wrote to the UGC regarding this, asking the University to provide information, ultimately claiming that it does not have a role in PhD related matters and directed the appellant to the University.
• Hence, a second appeal in the Commission.

Opinion of the Bench

• The Commission believed that the UGC had apparently acted as a post office for transferring the student’s grievance to the University. It took no action on the non-recognition of the degree and collection of fees, and the University did not respond to the letters of the UGC. Serious issues had been raised upon which the UGC should have acted promptly.
• CPIO (Centre Public Information Officer of UGC) had acted in a highly unreasonable manner. The CPIO argued on behalf of the University instead of explaining measures taken by the UGC.
• Further, the authorities’ glaring inaction and no use of regulatory power left students helpless. Hence, the court directed the UGC and the VMRF (and its Vice-Chancellor) to inform and explain the points raised. 

Final Decision

• The court gave show-cause notices to the CPIO (of UGC) and the Registrar (of VMRF) for explaining why they should not take action against them for not furnishing information.
• The Registrar is directed to give compensation to the appellant for harassment and concealing information.