PhD thesis and right to information Act
Introduction: The case addresses the denial of access to a PhD thesis under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act). The petitioner, Rajeev Kumar, sought a copy of the thesis titled "Studies on some nitrogen-fixing genes of Azotobacter vinelandii" from Jamia Millia Islamia University (JMIU). The university and the Central Information Commission (CIC) denied access, citing exemptions under Section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act, claiming the thesis had commercial importance and intellectual property concerns.
Background:The petitioner filed an RTI application in March 2019, seeking access to a PhD thesis submitted to JMIU. The Public Information Officer (PIO) and the First Appellate Authority (FAA) denied the request, citing Section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act. The petitioner escalated the matter to the CIC, which upheld the denial, leading to the filing of the present writ petition.
Brief Facts of the Case: RTI Request: Filed on March 26, 2019, seeking access to the PhD thesis. Initial Denial: The PIO forwarded a response stating the thesis was in "safe custody" and inaccessible. First Appeal: Rejected on May 24, 2019, citing Section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act. Second Appeal: The CIC, in its order dated April 12, 2021, upheld the denial, asserting the thesis had commercial importance and intellectual property concerns. Petition: Filed by Rajeev Kumar to challenge the CIC's decision and seek access to the thesis.
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the PhD thesis qualifies as "information" under the RTI Act.
2. Whether the thesis can be exempted from disclosure under Section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act.
3. Whether the CIC and JMIU acted lawfully in denying access to the thesis.
Submissions of the Parties:
Petitioner: Argued that a PhD thesis is an academic document meant for public access to promote research and transparency. Highlighted that JMIU regulations and UGC guidelines mandate the publication of PhD theses. Asserted that the thesis was previously accessible, as evidenced by its citation in academic works. Contended that the CIC's reasoning of "commercial importance" was speculative and unsubstantiated.
Respondents (CIC and JMIU): Claimed the thesis had commercial value and intellectual property concerns, warranting exemption under Section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act. Argued that the university's guidelines could not override statutory exemptions under the RTI Act.
Reasoning and Analysis by the Court:
Definition of "Information" under RTI Act: The court noted that a PhD thesis, being a document held by a public university, qualifies as "information" under the RTI Act.
Application of Section 8(1)(d):Section 8(1)(d) exempts disclosure of information involving "commercial confidence," "trade secrets," or "intellectual property," only if disclosure harms the competitive position of a third party. The court emphasized the dual test for invoking this exemption: (i) the information must fall within the specified categories, and (ii) its disclosure must demonstrably harm competitive interests.
JMIU's Failure to Substantiate Claims: The court found no evidence to support JMIU's claim that the thesis had commercial importance or intellectual property concerns. The thesis had already been cited in academic works, indicating prior public availability.
Public Interest vs. Confidentiality:The court highlighted the larger public interest in accessing PhD theses, which serve as foundational academic resources. It rejected speculative claims of harm, emphasizing the transparency and academic advancement objectives of the RTI Act.
Role of Universities as Custodians:Universities are mandated to disseminate knowledge and make PhD theses accessible. JMIU's withholding of the thesis contradicted its own regulations and UGC guidelines.
Improper Basis for CIC's Decision: The CIC relied on unsubstantiated claims by JMIU, failing to balance public interest against alleged concerns.
Decision:
1. Impugned Order Set Aside: The court quashed the CIC's order dated April 12, 2021.
2. Disclosure Directed: JMIU was ordered to provide the petitioner with access to the PhD thesis within two weeks.
3. Observations on Transparency:The court underscored the importance of academic transparency and the RTI Act's role in promoting accountability.
Conclusion: This judgment reaffirms the principles of transparency and academic freedom, emphasizing that public institutions cannot arbitrarily withhold access to information. By directing the disclosure of the PhD thesis, the court upheld the RTI Act's objective of fostering accountability and enabling public access to knowledge. The decision serves as a reminder that speculative claims of "commercial importance" cannot override the larger public interest in academic research.
Case Title: Rajeev Kumar vs. Central Information Commission & Ors.
Case No.: W.P.(C) 10118/2021
Court: High Court of Delhi at New Delhi
Date of Order: December 10, 2024
Judge: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjeev Narula
Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman
IP Adjutor
[Patent and Trademark Attorney]
High Court of Delhi
Email: ajayamitabhsuman@gmail.com
Phone: 9990389539
Disclaimer: The information shared here is intended to serve the public interest by offering insights and perspectives. However, readers are advised to exercise their own discretion when interpreting and applying this information. The content herein is subjective and may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation.
