ANOTHER SHOW CAUSE NOTICE TO THE CPIO
Report S۔ Muneer
Aligarh۔ All Departments of Studies of Aligarh Muslim University (AMU) have Board of Studies (BoS), which are democratic bodies that decide especially on the academics. The BoS is made up of all the faculty of the concerned department, the Dean of the Faculty, two nominees of the Academic Council and two Professors of the discipline of the department from outside the University. The Vice Chancellor can attend the meeting but does have the right to vote. The Vice Chancellor cannot exercise emergency powers on behalf of the BoS and cannot have a nominee, the BoS has an autonomy that it exercises. It has to take timely decisions and publish these decisions at the earliest. The workload of the teachers is decided by the BoS, and if the minutes of the BoS are not published timely the students might suffer tutional loss. The meeting of the BoS is notified and it is the duty of all teachers of the department to attend it.
Prof Tariq Islam, former Chairperson, Department of Philosophy and a nationally renowned RTI activist filed an application on 25.07.2023 seeking information on the date of meeting of the BoS, Department of Chemical Engineering (DCh) during 01.07.20218 to 15.07.2023, the date the draft minutes of these meetings were circulated, date when the confirmed minutes were circulated and the reasons for the delay in circulating the minutes. The application was filed with the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Vice Chancellor Secretariat, which was marked to the CPIO, Department of Chemical Engineering (DCh).
CPIO (DCh), Prof Syed Akhlaq Ahmad, did not provide the information to Prof Tariq Islam even till 26.08.2023. Prof Tariq Islam filed a first appeal to the Appellate Authority (AA), the Vice Chancellor of AMU, who endorsed it to the Dean, Faculty of Engineering and Technology (FoE). The AA (FoE) did not reply for a year upon which Prof Tariq Islam filed a complaint on 31.08.2025 with the Central Information Commission (CIC), New Delhi. A month after the Complaint with the Commission, CPIO, Prof Syed Akhlaq Ahmad, on 27.09.2025 supplied incomplete information. Prof Tariq Islam points out that the reply by Prof Syed Ahmad Akhlaq, CPIO (DCh) did not provide the dates when the draft minutes were circulated nor the reason for the delay in circulating the confirmed minutes.
In its hearing on 21.07.2025 the Commission after going into the facts and circumstances of the case observed that “…there is a considerable delay of 2 years” by the CPIO. The CIC took “a serious note of the absence of the CPIO during the hearing…his lackadaisical approach in implementing the RTI Act-2005 and making mockery of the provisions of the RTI Act…Show-cause to the CPIO…as to why action should not be taken under Section 20(1) of the RTI… submit a written statement before the Commission…within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order”. The Commission stated “…the complaint is reserved for final order.”
Prof Tariq Islam explains that under Section 20(1) of the RTI the penalty is Rs. 250/- per day of delay in the reply. In this case, the reply was delayed by two years (700 days), which means a penalty of Rs. 25,000/-, which the CPIO has to pay from his own pocket.
Prof Tariq Islam desires the Vice Chancellor should take a call on the matter and may issue instructions to timely issue the BoS draft minutes and the confirmed minutes so that the departments function in a smooth manner. The Dean’s Office of the Faculties maybe given the task of monitoring the circulation of both draft and confirmed minutes of the BoS, copies of which are received in the Deans’ Office, as the Dean is a member of the BoS, and prepare a three (03) monthly report and submit it for the attention of the Vice Chancellor. monitoring of the procedures of such important matters as selection of university teachers, while issuing orders of appointment. This is important since BoS is the back bone that protects the purpose of a University.
