Officer not obliged to furnish, transfer Patiala law varsity information: HC

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that its Public Information Officer cannot be compelled to supply—or even extract and transmit—information pertaining to the Rajiv Gandhi National University of Law (RGNUL), Patiala, under the RTI Act.

Setting aside the Central Information Commission’s April 26, 2022, order, the court made it clear that the RGNUL was an independent public authority and there is “no direct nexus” between it and the High Court merely because the Chief Justice was the law varsity’s ex-officio Chancellor.

“A perusal of the provision makes it clear that the functions discharged by the Chief Justice in the capacity of the Chancellor of the university concerned, are independent to that of the functions to be performed by the Chief Justice, under Article 216 of the Constitution of India,” Justice Kuldeep Tiwari ruled.

Justice Tiwari asserted that the high court “exercises no role in the functioning of the university”. The Bench, in the process, upheld that the PIO’s stand that the information sought was not “held by/under” the high court.

“It is apt to put on record that there is no direct nexus between the two institutions, i.e. the high court and the RGNUL, except that the Chief Justice happens to be the ex-officio Chancellor of the University…. The PIO of this court, by any stretch of imagination, cannot be asked either to supply the information, which relates to the RGNUL or extract the same therefrom and thereafter, transmit to the other respondent.”

The court relied on Section 8 of the RGNUL, Punjab Act, 2006, to delineate the Chancellor’s statutory functions and to underline their separateness from constitutional functions under Article 216. Finding the CIC’s contrary assumption erroneous, the court concluded: “The impugned order, indeed, requires interference, and the same is set aside.”

Referring to the course open to the applicant, the court clarified: “If respondent still requires any information pertaining to the RGNUL, he shall be at liberty to approach the PIO concerned, under the RTI Act.” Going into the background of the matter, the Bench observed that an RTI application was filed with the HC PIO seeking an RGNUL inquiry report and dates. The first appeal was dismissed by the Appellate Authority, but the second appeal was allowed by the CIC vide the impugned order to re-examine the application and provide the requisite information.