Gujarat University’s Self-Financed Courses Now Under RTI: GIC Expands Transparency in Higher Education

In a landmark ruling, the Gujarat Information Commission (GIC) has expanded the scope of the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005, by declaring that Gujarat University’s (GU) self-financed professional courses fall under the definition of "public authority." This decision underscores the principle that educational programs operated entirely under a university’s administrative control cannot evade public accountability, even when they are self-funded.

The order has far-reaching implications. It mandates Gujarat University to disclose information about its Higher Payment Programme (HPP) courses, thereby reinforcing transparency in higher education governance.

The Case Behind the Ruling

The issue came to light when former Senate member Devdutt Rana filed an RTI application on February 15 seeking details about GU’s Centre of Professional Courses, Department of Animation. Rana requested information on various self-financed courses offered by the university since 2013.

However, Gujarat University's Public Information Officer (PIO), Pavan Pandit, denied the request. He reasoned that the Centre of Professional Courses operated under the HPP model, which was self-financed and sustained entirely by student fees. Pandit argued that since no government funding was involved, the Centre did not fall within the definition of a public authority under the RTI Act.

GU later obtained a stay order from the High Court, contending that certain private partner institutions were also involved in running these courses.

GIC’s Observations and Findings

During the appeal hearing, State Information Commissioner Vipul Raval carefully examined the operational structure of Gujarat University’s Higher Payment Programme. He dismissed the claim that private entities had any controlling stake in managing these courses.

According to Raval, the administrative control of the university was the defining factor in determining whether an entity qualified as a public authority under the RTI Act. The commission emphasized that:

• The HPP was entirely internal to Gujarat University.
• There were no external private entities exercising control.
• All primary functions, such as faculty appointments, financial audits, decision-making, and operational management, were handled within the university framework.
• The courses were conducted entirely on the university’s premises.

Legal Basis for the Decision

The GIC’s ruling relied on a crucial interpretation of Section 2(h) of the RTI Act. This section defines a "public authority" as any body:

• Established or constituted by the Constitution, law, or notification by the government; or
• Controlled directly or indirectly by the appropriate government.

Specifically, Section 2(h)(c)(i) was invoked, which states that institutions under government control are considered public authorities, irrespective of financial independence.

In this context, Commissioner Raval noted that administrative control outweighs financial arrangements. Even though GU’s HPP was self-financed through student fees, the university's complete administrative authority placed it squarely under the RTI Act.

What the Ruling Means for Gujarat University

The GIC’s order compels Gujarat University to furnish information about its self-financed professional courses whenever requested under RTI. This includes:

• Details of courses launched since 2013.
• Faculty appointment records.
• Audit reports and financial disclosures.
• Operational decisions taken under the HPP framework.

By doing so, the university’s internal decision-making regarding self-financed programs will now be subject to public scrutiny and accountability.

Significance for Higher Education Governance

This ruling sets a precedent for similar cases across India. Many public universities have adopted self-financing models for professional courses in management, law, engineering, and design. These programs often operate with little government funding, raising questions about their transparency.

The GIC ruling clarifies that funding sources do not exempt public universities from RTI obligations if they maintain administrative control over these programs. This ensures that students, parents, faculty, and other stakeholders can demand greater accountability in managing professional courses.

Implications for Students and Stakeholders

For students, this order opens avenues to seek critical information about:

• Course structure and approvals.
• Appointment and qualifications of faculty.
• Allocation and utilization of student fees.
• Transparency in admissions and evaluation processes.

Parents and guardians, who often bear the financial burden of these high-cost programs, can verify how their money is managed. Furthermore, faculty and staff members gain a mechanism to ensure that administrative decisions are made fairly and transparently.

GU’s Previous Stance and the Shift Ahead

Before this ruling, Gujarat University had maintained that its self-financed courses functioned outside the scope of RTI due to their reliance on student fees. GU attempted to shield its Higher Payment Programme from public inquiries by obtaining a stay from the High Court.

However, with the GIC’s clarification that administrative control is the determining factor, GU can no longer deny RTI requests related to these programs. The decision represents a significant shift toward openness and transparency in academic governance.

Conclusion

The Gujarat Information Commission’s decision to bring Gujarat University’s self-financed professional courses under the RTI Act marks a turning point in the debate on transparency in higher education. By prioritizing administrative control over financial independence, the ruling ensures that public universities remain accountable to the citizens they serve.

As self-financed programs grow in popularity nationwide, this precedent will likely influence similar institutions nationwide, strengthening the culture of transparency in India’s higher education system.