Quick Read
- Rajasthan High Court quashed RUHS’s ₹1000 processing fee for RTI answer sheet copies on March 6, 2026.
- The Court ruled that universities cannot charge fees beyond those prescribed by the RTI Act, 2005.
- The case, Vipika vs RUHS, challenged the university’s additional processing charges for student answer sheets.
- The ruling enhances transparency and affordability for students seeking access to their evaluated exam papers.
JAIPUR (Azat TV) – The Rajasthan High Court has quashed a controversial ₹1000 processing fee imposed by the Rajasthan University of Health Sciences (RUHS) for providing certified copies of answer sheets under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005. The landmark ruling, delivered on March 6, 2026, by a Division Bench, affirms that universities cannot levy charges beyond those prescribed by the RTI Act and its established rules, significantly enhancing transparency and affordability for students seeking access to their evaluated examination papers.
The decision stems from a writ petition filed by Vipika, a B.Sc. Nursing student, who challenged RUHS guidelines demanding ₹1000 per answer book as a processing fee, in addition to standard photocopy and postal charges, after she failed two final-year subjects. Vipika had sought copies of her answer sheets under the RTI Act, which explicitly sets an application fee of ₹10 and photocopy charges of ₹2 per page.
Rajasthan High Court Upholds RTI Fee Structure
The Division Bench, comprising Justice Dr. Pushpendra Singh Bhati and Justice Sandeep Shah, meticulously examined the statutory framework of the RTI Act and the Right to Information (Regulation of Fee and Cost) Rules, 2012. The Court concluded that the fee structure for information sought under the Act is clearly specified by law, and public authorities, including universities, are prohibited from imposing additional charges inconsistent with these rules.
The University had attempted to justify the ₹1000 fee by citing Section 7 of the RTI Act and arguing that the cost covered the extensive administrative effort involved in managing and retrieving approximately 6.5 lakh answer sheets. This fee, the University stated, had been fixed by its Board of Management. However, the High Court firmly rejected this argument, emphasizing that Section 22 of the RTI Act grants it overriding effect over any other law or regulation, meaning university guidelines or ordinances cannot supersede the statutory fee structure.
Implications for RUHS Students and Transparency
The ruling in Vipika vs Rajasthan University of Health Sciences & Anr., recorded as D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13783/2021, directly overturns the University’s guidelines dated September 6, 2012, and a subsequent Board of Management decision from December 20, 2014, specifically regarding the imposition of the ₹1000 processing fee. The Court directed RUHS to provide information requested under the RTI Act by charging only the fees prescribed by the RTI Rules, without any additional levies.
This judgment is consistent with previous Supreme Court decisions, including Institute of Chartered Accountants of India vs Shaunak H. Satya and CBSE vs Aditya Bandopadhyay, which have consistently upheld the right of examinees to access evaluated answer sheets under the RTI Act. The Court also drew upon a prior Rajasthan High Court judgment in Alka Matoria vs Maharaja Ganga Singh University, which had similarly struck down excessive processing fees for answer sheets.
Promoting Accountability in Public Authorities
The Bench observed that demanding a ₹1000 processing fee appeared to be a tactic to deter students from exercising their right to seek certified copies of their answer books. Such a practice, the Court noted, runs contrary to the fundamental objective of the RTI Act, which aims to foster transparency and accountability within public authorities. By eliminating this financial barrier, the ruling empowers students to scrutinize their evaluation process more effectively, ensuring fairness and reducing the potential for arbitrary decisions.
This ruling is a significant victory for student rights and reinforces the overarching principle that statutory transparency laws must prevail over institutional administrative convenience. It sets a clear precedent for public authorities like the Rajasthan University of Health Sciences to adhere strictly to the prescribed fee structures under the Right to Information Act, thereby promoting greater accountability in their operations.