Analysing the Delhi High Court’s decision in Rajeev Kumar v. Central Information Commission, SpicyIP intern Aishani Chatterjee discusses its key contribution vis-a-vis academic freedom. Aishani is a second year B.Sc. LL.B.(Hons.) student at the West Bengal National University of Juridical Sciences (WBNUJS), Kolkata.
DHC Directs CIC to Disclose a Ph.D Thesis, Clarifies that it is Not Exempted under the RTI Act
By Aishani Chatterjee
In a significant judgment, the Delhi High Court, in Rajeev Kumar v. Central Information Commission (CIC) through CPIO & Ors., overturned an order passed by the CIC pertaining to access a Ph.D. thesis titled “Studies on some nitrogen-fixing genes of Azotobacter vinelandii”. In the judgement dated 10 December, 2024, Justice Sanjeev Narula criticised the CIC for relying on unsubstantiated assumptions and rhetoric and highlighted the CIC’s oversight in striking a balance between public interest and the protection of private sensitive information.
In this present post, I will analyse the Court’s findings and their implications on access to academic works.
Background and Trajectory of the Case
The appellant, Rajeev Kumar, filed an RTI application to access the aforementioned Ph.D. thesis authored by Umesh Kumar Bageshwar at Jamia Milia University (JMIU). JMIU denied access, citing the author’s request for restrictions due to concerns about potential commercial exploitation. The appellant argued that academic theses are public documents and fall under the ambit of “information” under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, and their public dissemination is mandated under the provisions of JMIU’s Ordinance. Moreover, the thesis had already been cataloged in academic journals. The appellant also sought the reasons and guidelines for restricting the document’s circulation.
In a poorly substantiated judgment (Lokesh discusses the pitfalls of the order here), the CIC upheld JMIU’s stance, stating that the thesis contained commercially sensitive information and invoked the exemption under Section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act to deny disclosure. The appellant’s argument for public interest was also dismissed on account of lacking concrete evidence.
The Delhi High Court reversed the CIC’s order, highlighting that the very essence of a Ph.D. thesis lies in its contribution to the furtherance of academic discourse, necessitating public dissemination and accessibility. The Court further clarified that although the CIC stated that the exemptions under the RTI Act could override the JMIU Ordinance, which requires the thesis to be published, the CIC failed to appreciate the fact that UGC Regulations, 2016 also requires a soft copy of the Ph. D. thesis to be submitted to the INFLIBNET digital depository. The Court’s clever approach to aligning legal interpretations with the public interest and academic standards was commendable as it prevented JMIU’s representatives from getting away on the mere technicality of prioritising a Union law such as the RTI Act, over a University’s internal ordinances.
Justice Narula addressed two key issues in the judgment:
- Does the Ph.D. thesis qualify as “information” under the RTI Act?
The word “information” under the RTI Act has a broad ambit. The Court affirmed that a thesis maintained by a public university and funded by public resources falls within the ambit of “information” as per section 2(f) of the Act.
- Can its disclosure be exempted under section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act?
The Court stated that for a public authority to avail the exemption under section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act, it must satisfy a dual test:
- Does the information fall under the ambit of commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property?
- Would its disclosure pose a detriment to the competitive position of a third party?
In relation to the first condition, the Court stated that a mere assertion of “commercial value” and “intellectual property” without the backing of material evidence is insufficient ground for the exemption to be invoked. Although the thesis is the author’s intellectual property and thus enjoys protection under the Copyrights Act, the same does not automatically justify the invocation of section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act.
Further, the Court stated that JMIU has failed to substantiate how giving access to a thesis, being a public document meant for dissemination, would significantly harm the competitive position of a “third party” and who the alleged “third party” is. In arguendo, even if the exemption provided under section 8(1)(d) applies to the present scenario, section 8(2) allows the disclosure of information if public interest outweighs the harm to private interests protected under the former provision. In light of the above, the Delhi High Court set aside the order passed by the CIC. It directed the Public Information Officer of JMIU to provide the information sought by the Appellant within two weeks.
Cracking the Code of Secrecy
“Confidentiality Culture” (paywalled), rooted in the shadow of secrecy, which colonial laws projected to protect official secrets, is one of the foremost reasons for restricting access to Ph. D. thesis. In the above piece, Kuntala Lahiri-Dutt argues that restricting access to awarded Ph.D. theses instead of making them available to the public, perpetuates poor academic practices and hinders the growth of knowledge and innovation in the field. This insularity, a sort of “beyond scrutiny” approach, contradicts the academic ideal of open and accessible scholarship. From my standpoint, through the judgment discussed above, the Delhi High Court could prohibit a bad precedent from being set that could have limited public access to critical academic information. A breakaway from the colonial hangover, the Court in Rajeev Kumar, by recognising the need to balance public interest with private and allowing the dissemination of the Ph.D. thesis by underscoring the fact that it was a public document, rejected the blanket invocation of intellectual property and commercial confidentiality as grounds for restricting access to information that otherwise would have been public.
No Monopoly under the Copyrights Act
The Court promptly rejected the argument put forth by the Respondents that the author of the thesis had sole discretion over his thesis. The Court reasoned that although the thesis enjoys protection under the Copyrights Act, it does not confer a monopoly on the author over its subject matter. This approach, once again, fosters academic openness and healthy scholarship.
Balancing Public and Private Interests: Other Relevant Provisions of the RTI Act
To emphasise balancing public and private interests, apart from the provisions already discussed in the judgment, Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act also provides an exemption from disclosure of information if it relates to private information which is not relevant to any public activity/interest or causes an unwarranted invasion of privacy of an individual. This section has an interesting caveat that relates to Rajeev Kumar; if a competent authority determines that the said information serves a larger public interest, then the exemption can be overridden, and the information can be disclosed. The purpose of this section is to strike a balance between privacy and public interest [see CPIO v. Subhash Chandra Agarwal].
Judicial interpretation of “public interest” vis-a-vis the RTI Act has been a tool for fostering accountability and transparency. For instance, the Supreme Court in India in Union of India v. Association for Democratic Reforms ruled that the voters’ right to know about the past criminal records of candidates competing in elections was a larger public interest that outweighed concerns about privacy. The case at hand, too, upheld this framework.
To conclude, the Delhi High Court’s decision reinforced the importance of transparency and the public nature of a Ph.D. thesis, in advancing academic discourse. By highlighting a need for balancing public and private interests, the Court rightfully rejected the CIC’s order which was overly reliant on intellectual property and alleged commercial confidentiality without concrete evidence to substantiate it. This judgment also set an important precedent for ensuring that the exemptions provided under the RTI Act are not misapplied and its objectives are adequately met.