Delhi High Court sets aside CIC order to disclose PM Modi's degree

The Delhi High Court on Monday overturned the Central Information Commission's (CIC) order to disclose information related to Prime Minister (PM) Narendra Modi's degree.

Justice Sachin Datta allowed the appeals filed by Delhi University (DU) challenging a 2017 order of CIC directing the varsity to furnish information related to Modi's degree to a Right to Information (RTI) applicant.

"CIC order is set aside," the single-judge said pronouncing the verdict.

The RTI applicant had sought records of students who had cleared the Bachelor of Arts (BA) course from Delhi University (DU) in 1978, the year in which PM Modi is said to have graduated from DU in political science.

The issue came to the limelight after former Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal in 2016 asked PM Modi to “come clean about his educational degrees” and “make them public”.

PM Modi had sworn in his election affidavit that he graduated from DU in the Bachelor of Arts (BA) Political Science course in the year 1978.

A year before that, one Neeraj Sharma had filed an RTI seeking details of all BA degrees awarded by Delhi University in 1978. The University denied disclosure of the information related to the degree, stating that it was “private” and had “nothing to do with public interest”.

In December 2016, Sharma moved the CIC against the University’s response. Information Commissioner Prof M Acharyulu passed an order directing DU to make the register containing the list of students who passed the Bachelor of Arts programme in 1978, public.

On January 23, 2017, the University moved High Court challenging the CIC order. The Court in January 2017 issued notice to Sharma and stayed the order after noting Solicitor General (SG) Tushar Mehta’s arguments that the order has far-reaching adverse consequences and that all universities in the country which hold degree details of crores of students in a fiduciary capacity.

During the hearing of the matter, SG Mehta, appearing for DU, submitted that right to know is not an untrammeled right.

"In Puttaswamy case, there was one conclusion, unanimously passed, that right to privacy is protected under Article 21. Right to privacy supersedes right to know," he added.

Mehta further submitted that personal information cannot be sought under the RTI Act.

"The authority will have to decide that what is your interest. They say that in public interest it needs to be given, Somebody has passed out in 1978. It is not relatable to his public duty, you are wanting to use it for political purpose," SG stated.

Mehta also argued that the RTI Act cannot be used to intimidate officers.

"Public authorities will not be able to exercise their purpose if such applications are entertained. People would be searching old documents, would be bogged down. RTI Act cannot be used as a tool to intimidate officers doing their duty."

SG Mehta also said to the RTI applicants that they are making a mockery of the RTI Act and defended the ₹10 charge for applications.

"You have made a mockery out of the RTI Act. If a public functionary is receiving thousands of applications, the minimum ₹10 charge as per statute will be required. You cannot have the luxury of filing RTI in the manner you like," he submitted.

Senior Advocate Sanjay Hegde, appearing for the RTI applicant, contested the claim by DU that it holds the degree details of students in fiduciary capacity.

"If I were to tell the universe I need help of a scribe, I need to get my way around but I am visually challenged, this is fiduciary. Marks are not external information. If I go to the driving test, the pass or fail information is external. That fiduciary relation does not come with the evaluated paper with university," Hegde contended.

The information officer has to see if the disclosure will cause public good or cause harm, Hegde added.

"Degree related information is in public domain. Access to information has to be provided for ordinary man or celebrity," he said.