Access To PHD Theses: A Case For Transparency And Accountability

Posted On - 27 January, 2025 • By - King Stubb & Kasiva

Introduction:

The accessibility of academic research, especially PhD theses, is vital for scholarly progress. A recent case involving Jamia Millia Islamia University (JMIU) refusing to disclose a PhD thesis under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI) raises questions about transparency in academic institutions. The key issue is whether a PhD thesis can be withheld under Section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act, which exempts disclosure of information involving “commercial confidence,” “trade secrets,” or “intellectual property” if it harms the competitive position of a third party.

About the Case:

The Delhi High Court’s ruling in Rajeev Kumar v. Central Information Commission on December 10, 2024, overturned a prior CIC order and set a precedent for balancing public interest with private considerations in academic research access. The case arose from Rajeev Kumar’s RTI request for a PhD thesis titled Studies on some nitrogen-fixing genes of Azotobacter vinelandii at JMIU.

JMIU regulations and UGC guidelines mandate public access to such Phd theses via platforms like INFLIBNET. Despite these mandates, JMIU argued the thesis involved intellectual property and commercial value, invoking Section 8(1)(d). However, for this exemption to apply, the information must qualify under protected categories, and its disclosure must harm a third party’s competitive position. Neither condition was adequately proven in this case.

The Court’s Rationale:

The Delhi High Court reversed the CIC’s decision, stressing that PhD theses are public academic resources. Justice Sanjeev Narula highlighted that publicly funded academic research serves public interest and demands accessibility. The Court examined whether the thesis qualified as “information” under the RTI Act and if its disclosure was justifiably exempt under Section 8(1)(d).

While PhD theses are intellectual property protected by copyright, this does not make them confidential or inaccessible. Copyright protects against unauthorized use but does not restrict dissemination of publicly funded research. Furthermore, the claim of “commercial value” and potential harm to stakeholders was unsubstantiated, with no concrete evidence provided.

Inconsistencies in JMIU’s handling of the thesis further weakened its argument. Evidence showed the thesis had previously been accessible and cited, contradicting claims of confidentiality. Such practices undermine trust in institutional decision-making and highlight the need for clear policies on academic research access.

The RTI Act’s purpose is to promote transparency and accountability. Universities, as public institutions, must uphold these principles. Denying access to a PhD thesis without valid justification undermines academic research’s goals. Even if Section 8(1)(d) applied, the Act allows disclosure if public interest outweighs potential harm. The societal benefits of accessible research—fostering innovation, enabling further studies, and supporting academic scrutiny—often outweigh speculative concerns about competitive harm.

Conclusion:

JMIU’s refusal to disclose the PhD thesis lacked substantive and procedural justification. The dual test under Section 8(1)(d) was unmet, compromising transparency and accountability. Academic research thrives on openness, and unjustified withholding hinders societal progress. Transparency is not just procedural; it is integral to the value and purpose of academic research.