A PhD thesis is a work of original research that students must submit to the University to complete their doctoral program successfully. Universities serve as custodians of PhD thesis, entrusted with preserving and disseminating scholarly work to foster academic progress. However, should this role of the University extend to locking away the thesis, barring researchers, and hindering the pursuit of knowledge? This question arose when Jamia Millia Islamia University (JMIU) withheld access to a PhD thesis, attaching commercial value to it. This practice not only contradicts the principles of knowledge sharing, a cornerstone of scientific and social advancement, but also deepens the divide between institutions and researchers lacking access to proprietary academic resources.
The controversy culminated in a legal battle after JMIU restricted access to a thesis titled “Studies on Some Nitrogen Fixing Genes of Azotobacter Vinelandi”. Once it was removed from JMIU’s portal and library, access to it was not even granted to those scholars who were working in the same field and needed this thesis for their own research. When all doors were closed by JMIU, a request was made under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI) to provide a copy of said thesis in 2019, but as expected, JMIU refused that request, too.
RTI is one of the most accessible tools for people to obtain information under the control of public authorities. However, not all information can be disclosed. Section 8 of the Act lists certain exceptions to the disclosure of information, such as information that is prejudicial to the sovereignty and integrity of India or that which is expressly forbidden by any court of law, etc.
While refusing the request to provide the aforesaid PhD thesis, JMIU resorted to one of these exceptions. The request was specifically refused under Section 8(1)(d) of RTI, which prohibits disclosure of any information which is commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party unless larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information. This decision was then appealed before the Central Information Commissioner (CIC), who also dismissed the case on the grounds that the PhD thesis has gained immense commercial importance and that its disclosure would harm the competitive position of the stakeholders.
It is against this decision of CIC that a writ petition was filed before the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi titled Rajeev Kumar v. Central Information Commission (CIC) Through CPIO & Ors. [W.P. (C) 10118/2021], in which the Hon’ble Court decided on the question of PhD thesis qualifying as ‘information’ under the RTI Act and whether it can be withheld under the exemption provided in Section 8(1)(d) of the same. LexOrbis represented the appellant before the Court.
The Court established a dual test for invoking Section 8(1)(d)- first, the information must fall under the categories of commercial confidence, trade secrets, or intellectual property; and second, its disclosure must demonstrably harm the competitive position of a third party. Mere claims of intellectual property or commercial value without substantive evidence are insufficient grounds for exemption.
Attributing exclusive copyright to the author of the PhD thesis, the Court also addressed the intersection of the author’s exclusive rights vested in copyrighted work/ right to apply for a patent and the disclosure of information held by the public authorities related to such works. The Court outlined that there must be a balance between public access to information and the protection of authors’ intellectual property rights. Section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act protects information that could harm the commercial interests of a third party, such as trade secrets or proprietary information, which may also overlap with copyrighted material and that is at risk of being exploited.
However, the Court opined that the mere existence of copyright does not automatically justify invoking Section 8(1)(d) to deny access to the information. Moreover, the Court asserted that as soon as the thesis is submitted to a public university, the author relinquishes the right to withhold disclosure. Copyright law is not intended to curtail access to information; rather, it safeguards an author’s economic and moral rights. That apart, Section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act requires more than a mere assertion of intellectual property. It mandates evidence that disclosure would materially harm the competitive standing of a third party.
Highlighting the fiduciary role that the Universities often play to protect the researcher’s interest, the Hon’ble Court acknowledged the restricted access to academic documents like PhD thesis, which may contain proprietary information with potential for patent protection. In such cases, the disclosure would result in the thesis being treated as a ‘prior art’, thereby jeopardising the patentability of the invention. Section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act may, in such cases, serve as a valid safeguard to prevent competitive harm to the researcher or institution. Similarly, Section 8(1)(e), which exempts disclosure of information held in a fiduciary capacity, could apply where the University holds the thesis as a trustee of the scholar’s proprietary rights. However, even in these cases, the exemption is not absolute, as the RTI Act clearly states that the larger public interest can override these exemptions.
The Court found that Jamia Millia Islamia University had failed to substantiate its claims of “commercial importance” or “competitive harm.” The thesis, intended for public dissemination to advance research, was once publicly accessible and arbitrarily restricted without adequate justification. Consequently, the Court held that the denial of access was unjustified and arbitrary, allowing the petitioner’s writ.
This landmark judgment reaffirms the RTI Act’s commitment to transparency while balancing intellectual property rights and public interest. It underscores the necessity for public authorities to present substantive evidence when invoking exemptions under Section 8. The decision also reinforces the principle that information held by public universities, especially academic works intended for public benefit, should not be shielded without compelling reasons.
By addressing the conflict between intellectual property and public access, the Delhi High Court has set a significant precedent that will shape future disputes under the RTI Act, commercial interest in a work and intellectual property rights associated therewith.
Authors: Manisha Singh and Anju Agrawal
First Published by: Lexology here