INDIA: Student denied admission to the University for exercising his right under the Right to Information Act, 2005

Dear friends,

The Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) has received information from Parivartan, a human rights organisation based in Delhi regarding the deliberate victimisation of a student, Mr. Djhananjay Tripathi by the Banaras Hindu University [BHU] for seeking information under Right to Information Act, 2005 [RTI Act]. It is alleged that Tripathi is denied admission for a master’s course at the university. The information that Tripathi sought was the report regarding the circumstances that led to the death of a fellow student at the hospital affiliated to the university. It is alleged that this report, if published, would put several of the university officers and professors in trouble due to their alleged involvement in corruption and corrupt practices at the university.

CASE DETAILS:

According to the information received, on January 11, 2005 Mr. Yogesh Kumar Rai, a student of the Bachelor of Physical Education course at the BHU was admitted at the emergency out patient department of Sir Sundar Lal Hospital [S.S Hospital] affiliated to the university. Rai died in the hospital at about 9pm on the same day. It was alleged that Rai died due to the negligence in the treatment. The students protested and the Vice Chancellor was forced to constitute an inquiry committee headed by Professor Harikesh Singh from the Faculty of Education to inquire into the circumstances that led to the death of Rai at the S.S. Hospital.

The inquiry committee submitted its report on March 31, 2005 which was forwarded to the Registrar of the BHU on April 27, 2005. But the report was not published. It is alleged that the enquiry revealed negligence and corruption in the hospital and at the university and that is the reason why the report was not made public.

It is alleged that (1) Professor Chudamani Gopal, Medical Superintendent, (2) Dr. D.N. Singh, Chief Medical Officer, Emergency Out Patient Department, (3) Dr. R.S. Sharma, Senior Medical Officer, (4) Dr. R. K Gupta, Senior Medical Officer, (5) Dr. K.K. Tripathi (6) Dr. Munish Chauhan, and (7) Professor S. K. Singh, Chief Proctor, are named in the inquiry report as responsible for Rai’s death. All these persons are working with the S. S. Hospital affiliated to the BHU where Rai was admitted for treatment.

Meanwhile Mr. Dhanajay Tripathi, another student of the BHU, filed an application at the Office of the Public Information Officer (CPIO) of the BHU on October 14, 2005. Dr. Vishwanath Pandey, the CPIO refused to provide any information regarding the inquiry to Tripathi. According to the RTI Act, 2005, the decision to refusing to provide information could be appealed to the Registrar of the university. Mr. Sundaram is the Registrar of the BHU.

Being aggrieved by the non availability of the information Tripathi preferred an appeal on December 26, 2005 to the Registrar of the BHU. But the Registrar also failed to provide the information. Mr. Tripathi aggrieved by the decision of the appellate authority, the Registrar of the BHU, preferred a second appeal under Section 19 of the RTI Act, before Central Information Commission (CIC) on April 25, 2006. On July 7, 2006 the CIC directed the BHU to furnish a copy of the Professor Harikesh Singh report to Tripathi within 15 days. However the BHU failed to comply with the direction of the CIC and did not furnish a copy of the inquiry report to Tripathi. On October 19, 2006 the CIC passed another order against the Registrar of the BHU asking the Registrar to pay a penalty of 25000 rupees [568 USD] for failing to comply with the CIC order.

In the meanwhile, Tripathi after completing his bachelor degree, had appeared for an admission test to enroll for a master’s degree at the BHU. He appeared for an admission test at the BHU in 2005. However he did not secure an admission. Tripathi appeared again for the entrance examination in 2006. Again Tripathi was denied admission. Suspecting foul play, Tripathi requested the CIC for an intervention.

Mr. K. P. Shreshkar, the Assistant Registrar of the CIC, conducted an inquiry and found that the Tripathi is a victim of deliberate exclusion by the BHU. The Assistant Registrar of the CIC issued an order on November 9, 2006 directing the BHU “to admit Mr. Dhananjay Tripathi in the M.P. Ed course for the year 2006-2007 with immediate effect and grant him a grace period up to the date of admission for the purpose of attendance”. The order further said that the BHU must “ensure that an applicant seeking information from the university under the RTI Act is not victimised in future”. In spite of all this Tripathi is denied admission to the course.

BACKGROUND INFORMATION:

The Right to Information Act, 2005;
In 1976, the Supreme Court of India declared that the right to receive and impart Information as a part of the fundamental rights under Article 19 of the Indian Constitution. In 2005 the Parliament of India passed the law, the Right to Information Act, 2005, which came into force on 13 October 2005.

Using the Act, a person can seek information from any department of the government, and any other organization or institution (including non-government organisations) that is established, constituted, owned, controlled or substantially financed, directly or indirectly, by the state or central government.

But the extremely centralised, powerful and obscure bureaucracy in India is taking the very spirit of RTI Act away from the people by making the law worthless for the common people. The functioning of this law depends also upon the bureaucrats in India. The law by its very nature challenges the bureaucratic misgivings and makes this challenge possible in the simplest form accessible to the ordinary people. This in various forms have posed a challenge to the thus far unchallenged bureaucratic authority, primarily by making the bureaucracy answerable to their acts and also by bringing in certain degree of transparency in the process. The response by the bureaucracy to counter this was to bring hurdles to the operation of this law. As evident from this case these hurdles are of varying nature which includes sheer non compliance with the orders of the authorities under this law.

SUGGESTED ACTION:

Please send a letters to the relevant authorities listed below calling for an immediate investigation into this case.

To support this case, please click here: SEND APPEAL LETTER