### University cannot charge processing fees for answer books exceeding rates prescribed under RTI Rules.

The petitioner, a B.Sc. Nursing student at the respondent University, failed in two subjects in her final year.

She applied for certified copies of her answer books under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act).

The University demanded a "processing fee" of ₹1,000 per answer book (totaling ₹1,225 including per-page and postal charges) based on a 2012 amended Ordinance and a 2014 Board of Management decision.

The University justified this fee by citing the administrative costs of employing contractual staff to handle approximately 6.5 lakh stored answer sheets and 350 annual RTI applications.

The petitioner challenged these guidelines as being in derogation of the RTI Act.

The Court primarily applied Section 6(1) of the RTI Act, which requires applications to be accompanied by "such fee as may be prescribed".

It relied on Section 22, which gives the RTI Act overriding effect over any inconsistent law or instrument.

The Court invoked the Right to Information Rules, 2012, specifically Rule 3 (fixing application fees at ₹10) and Rule 4 (prescribing ₹2 per page for copies).

Precedentially, the Court relied on CBSE v. Aditya Bandopadhyay (2011) regarding the right to inspect answer books.

ICSI v. Paras Jain (2019) which held that if a candidate chooses the RTI route, only RTI fees apply.

The Division Bench decision in Alka Matoria v. Maharaja Ganga Singh University (2012), which previously struck down similar ₹1,000 fees.

The Court reasoned that the field of "fees for information" is already occupied by the RTI Rules, 2012, which set a cap of ₹10 for applications and ₹2 per page for copies.

Under Section 22 of the RTI Act, these statutory rules override any internal University guidelines or Board decisions.

The Court rejected the University's "cost-of-labor" argument, noting that while Section 7(3) allows for further fees representing the "cost of providing information," such costs must be determined in accordance with the prescribed rules, not by calculating the salaries of University staff.

Following Paras Jain, the Court noted that while a University may have its own independent mechanism with higher fees, if an applicant specifically invokes the RTI Act, the Public Authority cannot charge anything beyond the RTI Rules.

The Court characterized the ₹1,000 fee as an "ill-intended attempt" to discourage students from seeking transparency.

The writ petition was allowed, and the University’s guidelines/amended Ordinance dated 06.09.2012 and the Board decision dated 20.12.2014 were quashed to the extent of the ₹1,000 processing fee.

The University was directed to provide the requested information after charging only the fees contemplated under the RTI Rules, 2012.