No public interest in disclosing PM Narendra Modi, Smriti Irani educational details: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court on Monday ruled that there is no implicit public interest in making public the information related to the educational qualifications of Prime Minister Narendra Modi and former Union Minister Smriti Irani [University of Delhi v Neeraj & Anr].

Justice Sachin Datta said that the marksheets/results/degree certificates/academic records of any individual, even if that individual is a holder of a public office, are in the nature of personal information, exempt under the Right to Information (RTI) Act.

"...it would be a different matter where a particular educational qualification is a criteria or prerequisite for holding a public office or any post," the Court added.

The Court said that it cannot be oblivious to the reality that what may superficially appear to be an innocuous or isolated disclosure could open the floodgates of indiscriminate demands, motivated by idle curiosity or sensationalism, rather than any objective “public interest” consideration.

"Disregarding the mandate of Section 8(1)(j) in such context would inexorably lead to demands for personal information concerning officials/functionaries spanning the entire gamut of public services, without any real “public interest” being involved. The RTI Act was enacted to promote transparency in government functioning and not to provide fodder for sensationalism," it added.

Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act exempts from disclosure any personal information that is not related to any public activity or interest.

Justice Datta returned these findings while dealing with a batch of petitions filed by Delhi University and the Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) challenging the order of the Central Information Commission (CIC) directing them to furnish details about the educational qualification of PM Modi and Irani.

While the CIC had ordered Delhi University to provide the details of PM Modi's degree under the RTI Act, CBSE was ordered to disclose whether Irani had cleared the 10th and 12th exams in the years 1991 and 1993.

After considering the case, the High Court set aside the CIC directions regarding both Modi and Irani.

The Court held that a university has a fiduciary relationship with its students and holds the personal information of students, including their academic records, in confidence. After going through provisions of the RTI Act, it held,

"These provisions make it evident that the University is obligated to issue results exclusively through official mark sheets and transcripts to the concerned student. The provisions indicate issuing of results to the student/s not to the public. The framework does not permit the disclosure of marks / grades to any third party. There is an implicit duty of trust and confidentiality in handling students’ academic records."

The Court also rejected the argument that since the information pertains to a period beyond 20 years, it must be disclosed as per Section 8(3) of the RTI Act.

Justice Datta ruled that the Supreme Court has now recognised right to privacy as a fundamental right and, therefore, it cannot be held that personal information loses its protected status solely on account of the passage of time.

"The mere efflux of time does not justify overriding privacy in the absence of compelling necessity linked to a legitimate aim," the Court said.

It added,

"Thus Section 8(3) does not automatically override the exemption under Section 8(1)(j) when the information sought is inherently personal and protected under the right to privacy. The statutory provision must be interpreted in harmony with constitutional guarantees, and no disclosure can be directed unless a demonstrable and compelling public interest clearly outweighs the privacy right in question."

Critiquing the CIC order, the Court said,

"...the CIC misdirected itself in relying upon anecdotal material and subjective assessments and drawing conclusions therefrom. Whether or not the Delhi University has followed the practice of publishing certain results on its website is not determinative of, and cannot have any bearing on, the interpretation and scope of Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act."

[Read Judgment]