To

The Proctor/ Appellate Authority

A.M.U, Aligarh Dated: 31.05.2010

Subject- Misleading and incomplete information being provided under RTI liable to be
proceeded against the CIC under relevant provision of RTI Act.

Sir,

I filed an RTI to the CAPIO of AMU, Aligarh which was received with vide Ref No.
50/CAPIO/F/10-11 dated 13/04/2010 in its Office which sent it to the concerned CPIO, Proctor
Office. I received a reply from the CPIO/ Proctor Office vide D.No 130/Proc dated 12-5-
2010 which is not only misleading but seems to be false also for the following reasons:

1. Proctor of Aligarh Muslim University goes on record in the news published in the
front page of The Indian Express on April 11, 2010 with the headlines “Shadow of
AMU’s spy wing on Siras sting” stating, “There is such a proctorial team on the
university. You can call it a local intelligence unit where students give information about
campus activities and unwanted elements. There are watch and ward staff who are salaried
employees. We also have students — proctoral monitors and deputy proctorial monitors —
who act as campus monitors. The aim is to maintain law and order in the university.” Also
the Vice-Chancellor of Aligarh Muslim University went on record in the feature
“Class Monitors’ published in Outlook, March 8 edition by stating, “There is nothing
secretive about the LIU and it is not policing”. Therefore it is impossible that LIU
neither exist nor existed in the past when the Vice-Chancellor of this institution is
defending its presence to the national media. So the reply is false.
2. Proctor has also mentioned to the Indian Express that in the LIU students give
information about campus activities and unwanted elements. There must a selection
criterion and process through which some students are entrusted by the LIU. So the
answer is misleading.
3. In the reply given by the CPIO in the point no 3 & 4, the information look misleading
for the same reason mentioned above.
4. The reply to point no.5 also look misleading as it cant be so that students entrusted
by the LIU to provide information about ‘campus activities and unwanted elements’
would work without any benefit in lieu of it and university wont provide any
facilities to them.
5. The reply to point no 6 & 7 are totally false that the university authorities don’t
possess the I-Card of the students entrusted by the LIU to give information and
those salaried staff working in it as Proctor mentioned in the news report.

I request that my application may be disposed of to provide me with correct/complete

otherwise I will have no other option but to move the CIC under Section 18(1) with a
demand for penalty under Section 20(1) of the RTI.
Thanking you.

(Md. Adil Hossain)

42-Aftab Hostel
Aftab Hall, A.M.U
Aligarh-202002