PM Modi degree case: Arvind Kejriwal made mockery of RTI Act, Gujarat High Court says

It is the 'character' of a leader and his concern for the welfare of the people that matters more than his educational qualification, the Gujarat High Court observed in the controversy surrounding the degree of Prime Minister Narendra Modi..The Court today quashed orders of the Chief Information Commission (CIC) which had directed Gujarat University and Delhi University to furnish PM Modi's graduation and post-graduation certificates under the Right to Information Act (RTI Act)..Justice Biren Vaishnav said that there is no mandatory educational qualification for leaders to contest elections. Thus, most of the candidates elected to Parliament or to the state legislatures are 'fairly educated even if they are not graduates or post graduates.'"To think of illiterate candidates is based on a factually incorrect assumption. The experience and events in public life and the legislatures have demonstrated that the dividing line between the well-educated and less educated is rather thin. Much depends on the character of the individual, in the sense of devotion to duty and the concern of the welfare of the people. These characteristics are not the monopoly of the well-educated persons," the order stated. .Pertinently, the Court also berated both the Chief Information Commissioner (CIC) and Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal, who was one of the respondents before the Court.It noted that the CIC had passed the order on an 'oral' request made by Kejriwal in a very callous and cavalier manner."This court finds that the CIC while passing the impugned order was well aware that what it was directing was not a specific and certain but a fishing and roving enquiry," the High Court said.Justice Vaishnav thus slammed Kejriwal for misusing the provisions of the RTI Act."There has been an indiscriminate misuse of the salutary provisions of the RTI Act in the present case for the purposes not contemplated by the legislature while enacting the said Act. In the present case, the manner in which a request came from Respondent No.2 who was neither an Applicant nor an appellant and was merely a respondent before the CIC leaves much to be desired. Such requests cannot be made so casually making mockery of the very intent and purpose of the RTI Act," the Court said.Thus, it proceeded to impose costs of ₹25,000 on the Delhi Chief Minister..Indiscriminate misuse of RTI Act by Arvind Kejriwal.Gujarat High Court .Justice Vaishnav dismissed the arguments made by Senior Advocate Percy Kavina on behalf of Kejriwal that voters have the right to know how much their candidates are qualified and the same needs to be properly disclosed in nomination forms. The judge said that the law contemplates only mentioning of details of a candidate’s educational qualification on affidavit. Nowhere does it prescribe that the candidate is under a statutory duty to firstly annex the said documents and thereafter make it public.The judge further pointed out that the law also requires a candidate to disclose his or her criminal antecedents and financial details."If the argument of Respondent No 2 (Kejriwal) is accepted and taken to its logical conclusion then it would mean that not only a candidate is under statutory compulsion to make public his educational certificates but also the documents pertaining to his criminal antecedents such as charge sheets, statements of witness etc. and documents pertaining to his financial assets i.e. income tax returns, certificates of fixed deposits etc," the Court opined..No public interest in disclosing PM Modi's degrees.The Court even turned down the argument that disclosure of PM Modi's degrees involves public interest. It noted that in its own order, the CIC came to the finding that the information sought for was neither relatable to accountability nor was there any larger public interest in disclosure of the said information.The disclosure sought for was merely something which was of ‘interest to the public’ and a matter of political curiosity, and not something which was in the public interest."Then the Commission ought to have strictly applied the exemptions contemplated under section 8(e) and (j) of the RTI Act and ought to have refused disclosure of the said information. Instead the Commission has rendered an omnibus finding that educational qualification related information about public authorities, public servants or political leaders occupying the constitutional positions is not hit by exception under Section 8 of the RTI Act," the judge opined.Further, the Court said that it could not comprehend the justification or the legal foundation on the basis of which the CIC arrived at the said finding."This court holds that in absence of any larger public interest, which is neither pleaded nor raised, the educational degrees of PM Modi are exempted from disclosure under the provisions of section 8(1)(e) and (j) of the RTI Act," it held.It further pointed out that Kejriwal merely set up a case of “something which is of interest to the public” rather than setting up a legal case of “something which is in the public interest”. .PM's degree certificate already available on University website.Pertinently, the Court said that the degree certificate of the PM is already available on the website of Gujarat Univeristy.It agreed with the contentions of Solicitor General Tushar Mehta that the insistence of on Kejriwal's part to get the educational degree of PM Modi through the RTI route, when the same is already available in the public domain, also creates doubt on his bona fide and motive. "Despite the degree in question being put on the website of the petitioner University for all to see and despite this fact being made expressly clear with precision in the pleadings before this Court and despite the respondent never ever disputing the degree in question either during the pendency of these proceedings or even during final hearing, the respondent No.2 has persisted with the matter," the Court noted.This is one more reason to impose costs on Kejriwal, the Court said."In absence of any valid ground of public interest, this court finds that the application also fails to qualify the public interest test due to ostensible motive and purpose which appears to this court to be more politically vexatious and motivated, instead of, being based on sound public interest considerations," the judge observed..CIC passed a very casual order.The Bench noted that the CIC has passed the order on an 'oral' request made by Kejriwal, and thus said the same was passed in a very callous and cavalier manner. The High Court objected to the Information Commissioner referring to his own father's ideology in passing the order. Then Information Commissioner M Sridhar Acharyulu had invoked his father and freedom fighter MS Acharya in his order directing the Gujarat and Delhi Universities to furnish details of PM Modi's degrees."The reference made by the Information Commissioner to his father’s ideology and comment and the constituent debate whereby a critique has been made for not restricting adult franchise on the ground of illiteracy are completely extraneous reasonings going into the root of the decision making process adopted by the commission. The manner in which the CIC has proceeded to give example of his father is more shocking than surprising. It is unbelievable that an authority exercising quasi-judicial powers at Second Appellate stage would exercise the powers in such manner," the Court emphasised. Further, it held that the CIC by considering the oral request ,transgressed its jurisdiction, embarked into the political arena and ventured into judicial activism on being overwhelmed by the fact that the information is sought by a citizen occupying the post of Chief Minister."In the opinion of this court, it appears that the Information Commissioner has lost sight of the distinction between judicial commission and public forum. The observation and the reasoning made by the information commission compels this court to hold that such observations were beyond the remit of judicial considerations which the commission is required to adhere to while adjudicating statutory second appeal under the provisions of RTI Act," the Court observed..Solicitor General Tushar Mehta along with Advocates Rajat Nair, Kanu Agarwal and Dharmishta Raval appeared for Gujarat University.Additional Solicitor General Devang Vyas represented Union of India.Senior Advocate Percy Kavina along with Advocates Aum Kotwal and PP Chandarana represented Arvind Kejriwal.Advocate Shivang Shah represented the CIC..[Read Judgment]