The Delhi High Court on Monday set aside the Central Information Commission’s (CIC) 2017 directive that required Delhi University (DU) to share details of Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s degree.
Justice Sachin Datta, while allowing DU’s appeals against the order, ruled that the university was not obligated to provide the information sought under the Right to Information (RTI) Act.
“CIC order is set aside,” the single-judge bench declared while pronouncing the verdict.
The RTI applicant had sought records of students who completed the Bachelor of Arts (BA) course at Delhi University in 1978, the year Prime Minister Narendra Modi is stated to have graduated in Political Science.
The matter gained traction in 2016 when former Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal urged the Prime Minister to “come clean” about his educational qualifications and make them public.
In his election affidavit, PM Modi had declared that he earned a BA degree in Political Science from DU in 1978.
A year earlier, Neeraj Sharma had filed an RTI request seeking details of all BA degrees awarded by Delhi University in 1978. The university declined to share the information, arguing that the records were “private” and bore “no connection to public interest.”
In December 2016, Sharma challenged DU’s response before the Central Information Commission (CIC). Information Commissioner Prof. M. Acharyulu subsequently directed the university to disclose the register listing students who completed the Bachelor of Arts programme in 1978.
On January 23, 2017, Delhi University approached the High Court challenging the CIC order. The Court issued a notice to Neeraj Sharma and stayed the directive after hearing Solicitor General (SG) Tushar Mehta’s submissions. Mehta argued that the order could have far-reaching consequences, as universities across the country hold degree records of millions of students in a fiduciary capacity.
During the hearing, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing Delhi University, argued that the right to know is not absolute.
Referring to the landmark Puttaswamy judgment, he noted that the Supreme Court had unanimously held that the right to privacy is protected under Article 21 of the Constitution. “The right to privacy overrides the right to know,” he submitted.
Solicitor General and Senior Advocate Clash Over Access to University Records(Court sets)
Mehta further contended that personal information cannot be accessed under the RTI Act. He argued that authorities must assess whether the request genuinely serves public interest. “Someone may have graduated in 1978, but that has no bearing on their public duty. Such requests are often made for political purposes,” he submitted.
The Solicitor General also cautioned that the RTI Act should not be misused as a tool to intimidate officials.
“Public authorities will be unable to function effectively if such applications are entertained,” Mehta argued. “Officials would be burdened with digging up decades-old records, leaving them bogged down. The RTI Act cannot be misused as a tool to intimidate officers performing their duties.”
Solicitor General Mehta also accused the RTI applicants of “making a mockery” of the Act, while defending the statutory fee of ₹10 for filing applications.
“If a public functionary is inundated with thousands of applications, the minimum fee prescribed under the law is essential. One cannot have the luxury of filing RTIs in any manner one wishes,” he submitted.
On the other hand, Senior Advocate Sanjay Hegde, representing the RTI applicant, disputed DU’s claim that it holds students’ degree records in a fiduciary capacity.
Countering DU’s stand, Senior Advocate Sanjay Hegde argued that not all information held by universities falls under fiduciary capacity. “If I disclose that I require a scribe because I am visually challenged, that is fiduciary. But marks are not internal information. For instance, in a driving test, whether one passes or fails is external information. Similarly, a fiduciary relationship does not extend to evaluated answer sheets held by a university,” he contended.
Hegde further emphasized that it is the responsibility of the information officer to weigh whether disclosure would serve public good or cause harm.
“Degree-related information is already in the public domain. Access to such records must be provided equally, whether for an ordinary individual or a public figure,” he said.
By
Жеке акаунтты жасау says:
