The Rajasthan High Court has delivered a decisive affirmation of the Right to Information Act’s primacy over institutional guidelines, holding that public universities cannot impose arbitrary processing fees that exceed the statutory limits prescribed under the RTI Rules. This judgment reinforces the foundational principle that transparency cannot be undermined by bureaucratic cost structures disguised as administrative necessity.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, a B.Sc. Nursing student, failed two subjects in her final examination and sought certified copies of her answer books under the Right to Information Act, 2005. The respondent university demanded a total fee of Rs.1,225/-, comprising Rs.1,000/- as a "processing fee" per answer book, Rs.80/- for photocopying (at Rs.2/page), and Rs.145/- for postal charges.
Procedural History
- The petitioner filed an RTI application on 20 January 2021, paying the prescribed Rs.10/- application fee.
- On 2 February 2021, the university responded by demanding an additional Rs.1,000/- as a "processing fee," citing internal guidelines issued on 6 September 2012 and later amended by Board of Management resolution dated 20 December 2014.
- The petitioner challenged this demand before the Rajasthan High Court via a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought quashing of the university’s guidelines imposing the Rs.1,000/- processing fee, arguing that it violated the Right to Information (Regulation of Fee and Cost) Rules, 2012, and the overriding provisions of the RTI Act.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether a public university, while responding to an RTI request for answer books, can impose a separate "processing fee" of Rs.1,000/- per application, when the RTI Act and its Rules prescribe fixed, reasonable fees for application and information dissemination.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
Counsel relied on Section 6 and Section 7 of the RTI Act, and Rule 3 and Rule 4 of the Right to Information (Regulation of Fee and Cost) Rules, 2012, which cap the application fee at Rs.10/- and limit charges for photocopies to Rs.2 per page. He argued that the Rs.1,000/- processing fee was not a cost of providing information but a deterrent mechanism, rendering the RTI regime otiose. He cited Alka Matoria v. Maharaja Ganga Singh University and Institute of Chartered Accountants of India v. Shaunak H. Satya to show that courts have consistently struck down such fees as ultra vires.
For the Respondent
The university contended that Section 7(3) of the RTI Act permits charging "further fee representing the cost of providing the information," and that its fee was calculated based on salaries of three contract employees handling 350 annual requests, totaling Rs.1,028/- per application. It relied on a 2018 state government circular and claimed that special rules under university ordinances permitted higher charges. It argued that the RTI Act does not prohibit cost-based fees beyond the prescribed rates.
The Court's Analysis
The Court undertook a rigorous textual and purposive interpretation of the RTI Act, emphasizing that Section 22 grants the Act overriding effect over any inconsistent law, rule, or regulation. The Court held that the university’s guidelines, though framed under its own ordinances, could not override the statutory fee structure under the RTI Act.
"The field is already occupied by the Rules of 2012 wherein the fee has been specified even for the application and for providing information."
The Court rejected the university’s cost-based justification, noting that Section 7(5) requires fees to be "reasonable" and that the Rules of 2012 already account for actual costs of photocopying, postal charges, and inspection. The Rs.1,000/- fee bore no relation to these enumerated costs; it was a flat, arbitrary charge unrelated to the volume of pages or effort expended.
The Court distinguished the university’s reliance on Institute of Companies Secretaries of India v. Paras Jain, clarifying that while dual avenues may exist, once a citizen chooses the RTI route, only RTI fees apply. The Court also affirmed the precedent in Aditya Bandopadhyay, holding that examining bodies cannot invoke internal regulations to deny access to answer books when the RTI Act mandates disclosure.
The Court further observed that such fees, if permitted, would systematically discourage students from seeking transparency, thereby defeating the Act’s core objective: "promoting transparency and accountability in the working of every public authority."
The Verdict
The petitioner succeeded. The Court quashed the university’s guidelines imposing the Rs.1,000/- processing fee. The university is now bound to provide certified copies of answer books under the RTI Act, charging only the fees prescribed under the Rules of 2012: Rs.10/- for application, Rs.2/- per page for photocopies, and actual postal charges above Rs.50/-. Any additional fee is illegal.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Fees Must Be Cost-Linked, Not Arbitrary
- Practitioners must challenge any public authority demanding fixed "processing," "administrative," or "handling" fees under RTI, unless directly tied to photocopying, postal, or diskette costs.
- Fees must be itemized and justified under Rule 4 of the RTI Rules, 2012 - blanket charges are void.
RTI Overrides Institutional Rules
- Universities, boards, and regulatory bodies cannot rely on their own bye-laws or ordinances to impose higher fees when RTI is invoked.
- Section 22 of the RTI Act operates as a statutory override - any conflicting internal policy is null and void.
Transparency Cannot Be Priced Out
- Charging Rs.1,000/- for answer book copies is not merely excessive - it is a structural barrier to accountability.
- Courts will treat such fees as prima facie violative of Article 19(1)(a) and the constitutional mandate for transparency.
- Practitioners should cite Alka Matoria and Aditya Bandopadhyay as binding precedents in all RTI fee disputes involving educational institutions.
