PM Modi degree row: Gujarat High Court dismisses Arvind Kejriwal’s appeal, upholds ₹25,000 costs

A Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court has dismissed Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leader Arvind Kejriwal’s appeal against the imposition of ₹25,000 as costs on him by a single-judge Bench in connection with his conduct in a case concerning a plea to disclose Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s educational records [Arvind Kejriwal v Gujarat University & Ors.].

Kejriwal had earlier sought the disclosure of Modi's educational degree details under the Right to Information Act (RTI Act). The Central Information Commission (CIC) had ruled in his favour.

However, on appeal, a single-judge Bench of the High Court overturned the CIC's order and also imposed costs on Kejriwal. This prompted Kejriwal to file an intra-court appeal before the Division Bench, which on Tuesday dismissed the same.

The Division Bench of Chief Justice Sunita Agarwal and Justice DN Ray upheld the single-judge Bench's finding that the CIC had acted beyond its jurisdiction in directing Gujarat University and Delhi University to furnish details of Modi’s degrees to Kejriwal.

Additionally, the Division Bench rejected Kejriwal’s challenge to the observations made by the single judge regarding his conduct in the proceedings. It held that statutory authorities and courts could not be used to pursue political motives.

"The statutory authorities and the Courts should not be treated as a public platform to ventilate the political vengeance. A political leader holding the public office cannot use the statutory proceedings for their political motives. The manner in which the appellant responded to the CIC in the proceedings against him and further pursued the matter by filling the written submissions speaks of itself and need no further comments or observations from us," held the Court.

The Court also rejected the argument that Modi’s position as Prime Minister made his educational records a matter of public interest.

"No public interest much less larger public interest would require seeking of information of the educational qualification of the Prime Minister of India, who is an elected representative of the people and when his educational qualification has no bearing on his election to the Constitutional post," the Court held.

The dispute dates back to 2016, when Kejriwal, then Chief Minister of Delhi, was responding to proceedings before the CIC concerning an RTI request related to his electoral photo identity card.

In a written response dated April 28, 2016, he sought information concerning Modi’s educational qualifications.

The CIC subsequently treated Kejriwal’s response as an RTI application and directed the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO) to provide the degree numbers and years to Delhi University and Gujarat University. It also directed the universities to search for the relevant records and provide the information.

Gujarat University challenged the CIC’s order before the Gujarat High Court. In March 2023, a single judge quashed the CIC’s order and imposed a ₹25,000 cost on Kejriwal.

The Division Bench has now affirmed this ruling by its September 29 ruling. It held that the CIC had no jurisdiction to entertain Kejriwal’s request in the manner it had done.

Under Section 6(1) of the RTI Act, a person seeking information has to make a written or electronic request to the Public Information Officer of the concerned public authority, accompanied by the prescribed fee and specifying the information sought.

The Court held that there was no such application before the CIC seeking the educational records from Gujarat University.

It said the Commission’s decision to treat Kejriwal as an applicant and take suo motu cognisance of his request was outside the statutory scheme of the RTI Act.

Additionally, the Court also examined whether educational records could otherwise be disclosed under the RTI Act.

It held that educational records are private information and are usually kept by universities in trust. The Court noted that Section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act protects information held in such a fiduciary (trust-based) relationship, while Section 8(1)(j) protects personal information.

Hence, the Court held that the records could not be disclosed in this case as there was no larger public interest justifying the disclosure.

"Balancing two intersecting rights, namely, the right of privacy of an individual and the right to seek information of a citizen under the RTI Act, 2005, we are of the firm opinion that disclosure of the information, as directed by the CIC, in the instant case, was exempted personal information of an individual falling within the ambit of Section 8(1)(e) and (j) of the RTI Act, 2005 and the respondent University cannot be asked to disclose the same," said the Court.

The Division Bench accordingly upheld the single judge’s judgment on both grounds and dismissed Kejriwal's appeal. It held that the CIC lacked jurisdiction and that the educational records were exempt from disclosure under the RTI Act.

Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi along with advocates Vivek Jain, Aayushi A Shah, Amit Bhandari, Mohd Irshad and Aum M Kotwal appeared for Arvind Kejriwal.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta along with Additional Advocate General (AAG) Manisha Luvkumar and advocates Rajat Nair, Aman Mehta and Dharmishta Raval represented the Gujarat University.

[Read Judgment]