RTI activist flays UoP circular on answer sheet copies

Written By DNA | Updated:

It forbids students from 'misusing' them, absolves officials of delay in supplying copies

Taking objection to a recent circular issued by the University of Pune (UoP), right to information (RTI) activist Vivek Velankar has written to the vice chancellor (V-C) demanding that it be withdrawn as it goes against the RTI Act and is student-unfriendly.

The circular pertains to students’ right to demand copies of answer sheets. It has introduced stringent norms like time limit of 10 days after results for applying for copies of answer sheets. Besides, students are forbidden from ‘using’ answer sheets in any manner. Varsity officials are absolved of any blame if there is delay in issuing copies, the circular states.

Taking exception, the activist pointed out that if the varsity keeps copies of answer sheets for 30 days, it should extend the same facility to students. “Also after receiving the copy, a student might want to cross-check with a professor, but the varsity has asked them not to share it elsewhere and threatens action if they do. Besides, the circular says if there is a delay in supplying copies, they are not responsible. This is absurd,” said Velankar.

Meanwhile V-C Wasudeo Gade told dna that the circular was issued after studying the provisions of the Right To Information Act. “The decision was taken by the statutory body of the University of Pune. The proposal was later laid before the management council and it has been approved. The proposal is usually sent to governor for his sanction, but wanting to implement it during examination time, I have sanctioned the circular using my special powers under the act,” said Gade.

When asked what misuse the circular refers to, due to which students are forbidden to share the answer sheets, Gade said, “During previous years, we saw the students compared their marks with other students, or tried to verify those answer sheets from experts. So to avoid this chaos, we have mentioned this clause.”