ICSI (also ICAI) charging Rs. 500 for certified copies is illegal : Supreme Court
ICSI (also ICAI) Charging Rs. 500 for certified copies is illegal As per a recent judgment of the Supreme Court in ICSI v. Paras Jain [Civil Appeal No. 5665/2014, dated 11-4-2019], the High Court held that educational Bodies cannot charge more than RTI fee for providing certified copies to students. The RTI Fee as per RTI Rules, 2012 read with RTI Act, 2005 is Rs. 10 fixed per application + Rs. 2 per page. Hence, charging of Rs. 500 or Rs. 1000 per copy is illegal. Example: Suppose, a student has written 20 pages. Hence, he can be asked to pay only Rs. 50 (Rs. 10 for application + Rs. 2 per page × 20 pages = Rs. 50). Download Copy of Judgment IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5665/2014 INSTITUTE OF COMPANIES SECRETARIES OF INDIA (ICSI) v. PARAS JAI ORDER 1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 22.04.2014 of the Delhi High Court wherein, while allowing the Letters Patent Appeal, filed by the respondent herein, it set aside Guideline No.3 notified by the statutory council of appellant–Institute of Companies Secretaries of India (ICSI) and directed it to charge fee prescribed as per Rule 4 of the Right to Information (Regulation of Fee and Cost) Rules, 2005. 2. The factual matrix of the case is that the respondent appeared in the final examination for Company Secretary (ICSI) conducted by the Appellant in December 2012. On being unsuccessful in qualifying the examination, the respondent made an application under the Right to Information Act for inspection of his answer sheets and subsequently, sought certified copies of the same from the appellant. The appellant thereafter has demanded Rs.500/per answer sheet payable for the supply of certified copies of answer book(s) and Rs.450/per answer book for providing inspection thereof respectively as per Guideline No.3 notified by the statutory council of the appellant. It is to be noted that the respondent obtained the said information under the Right to Information Act, 2005. 3. Being aggrieved by the demand made by the appellant, the respondent preferred a Writ Petition before the Delhi High Court wherein the Learned Single Judge dismissed the petition. A Letters Patent Appeal was thereafter preferred by the respondent wherein, the Division Bench quashed Guideline No.3 notified by the appellant and held that the appellant can charge only the prescribed fee under Rule 4, The Right to Information (Regulation of Fees and Cost) Rules, 2005. 4. The short issue before us is when the answer scripts of appellant’s examination is sought whether the fee prescribed under Rule 4 of the Right to Information (Regulation of Fee and Cost) Rules, 2005 payable or that under Guideline No. 3 of the Guideline, Rules and Procedures for Providing Inspection and/or Supply of Certified Copies of Answer Book(s) to Students, framed by the Examination Committee of appellant’s statutory Council at its 148th Meeting held on 14.08.2013. 5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant argued that it is undisputed that the Right to Information Act, 2005 is applicable to the appellant. However, in light of specific guidelines formulated under the (ICSI) Company Secretaries Act, 1980, the same should be applicable and not that which is provided under the Right to Information Act. He further contends that owing to quashing of Guideline No. 3 by the Division Bench of Delhi High Court, the appellant cannot collect any amount of fee except the one prescribed under Rule 4, The Right to Information (Regulation of Fees and Cost) Rules, 2005 which adds to financial strain on the appellant. 6. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent submitted that any candidate who seeks his answer scripts under Right to Information Act, 2005 can only be charged under Rule 4, The Right to Information (Regulation of Fees and Cost) Rules, 2005. Further, the learned counsel submits that the candidates must have a choice to seek the answer scripts either by the avenue under Right to Information Act or under the Guidelines of the appellant framed by the examination committee of statutory Council under the (ICSI) Company Secretaries Act, 1980. 7. Having heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties and we have also meticulously perused the record. 8. The appellant is governed by the provisions of the Company Secretaries Act, 1980 (ICSI) and under Sections 15, 15A and 17, the Examination Committee of the statutory Council has framed Guideline No. 3 providing an avenue to the candidates to either inspect their answer scripts or seek certified copies of the same on payment of the stipulated fees. Guideline no.3 stipulates the payment of Rs. 500 for obtaining certified copies and Rs. 450 for seeking inspection of the same. “3. Fee of ₹500 per subject/answer books payable for the supply of certified copies of answer book (s) and ₹450 per answer book for providing inspection thereof respectively. The fee shall be paid through Demand Draft drawn in favor of “The Institute of Company Secretaries of India”, payable at New Delhi.” 9. On the contrary, Rule 4, The Right to Information (Regulation of Fees and Cost) Rules, 2005 stipulates, “4. For providing the information under subsection (1) of section 7, the fee shall be charged by way of cash against proper receipt or by demand draft or bankers cheque or Indian Postal Order payable to the Accounts Officer of the public authority at the following rates:— (a ) rupees two for each page (in A4 or A3 size paper) created or copied; (b) actual charge or cost price of a copy in larger size paper; (c) actual cost or price for samples or models; and (d) for inspection of records, no fee for the first hour; and a fee of rupees five for each subsequent hour (or fraction thereof).” (emphasis supplied) 10. Thus it is clear that the avenue for seeking certified copies as well as inspection is provided both in the Right to Information Act
