The Delhi High Court has quashed a 2016 order issued by the Central Information Commission (CIC) that had directed Delhi University (DU) to disclose details of Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s degree in response to a Right to Information (RTI) application that was filed.
The court observed on Monday that there exists a “special relationship of trust and confidence” between a student and a university, which is fiduciary in nature. Reasoning this, it ruled that information related to an individual’s educational qualifications — including degrees, grades, and marks — qualifies as “personal information” under the RTI Act and is therefore exempt from mandatory disclosure.
DU had approached the High Court in 2017, challenging the CIC’s directive to allow inspection of records pertaining to students who completed the BA Programme from DU in 1978. It was the year in which Modi is believed to have graduated from the University.
The court emphasized that revealing such academic information, in the absence of a persuasive public interest, would constitute an intrusion into personal privacy, which is protected under the right to privacy.
Justice Sachin Datta noted that the university’s regulatory framework does not allow the disclosure of marks or grades to third parties.
The court also referred to a 2023 decision of the Gujarat High Court, which had similarly set aside a CIC order that had directed Gujarat University to search for and disclose information about Modi’s postgraduate degree from 1983.
“It is unambiguously clear that the ‘marks obtained’, grades, and answer sheets etc., are in the nature of personal information and protected under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, subject to an assessment of overriding public interest,” Justice Datta noted in his 175-page judgment. He added, “This court 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.”
The court said that ignoring the safeguards under Section 8(1)(j) could lead to a situation where personal information of public officials across various departments is routinely demanded, without any genuine public interest being served.
Justice Datta emphasised that the RTI Act was enacted to promote transparency in governmental functioning and not to feed sensationalism or personal vendettas.
The judgment has come nearly six months after the court completed hearing the matter on February 27. It had reserved its orders.
In its ruling, the High Court also criticized the CIC’s 2016 order, calling its approach “thoroughly misconceived.” The court expressed “dismay” that the Commission’s directive appeared to be based on a subjective assessment rather than a correct interpretation and application of the relevant provisions of the RTI Act.
The High Court was adjudicating six petitions in total, four of which were filed by DU. These petitions challenged various aspects of the 2016 CIC order.
DU’s petitions were filed against RTI applications submitted by Neeraj Kumar, Mohd Irsad, R K Jain, and others. Among DU’s challenges was a CIC directive that ordered the university to deduct ₹25,000 from the salary of its Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), payable in five monthly instalments, for rejecting an RTI request due to unpaid fees.
The court set aside this penalty, observing that such financial penalties can only be imposed if there is a clear and specific finding of deliberate wrongdoing or misconduct — which was absent in the CIC’s order.
“The CIC ought not to have lost sight that the CPIO could not be faulted for seeking to adhere to the requirements under… RTI Rules, 2012. At the very highest, the conduct of the CPIO could be characterised as a procedural irregularity rather than a malafide or obstructionist denial of information,” the judgment read.
The court also took into account the volume of RTI applications received by DU — between 2,100 and 2,400 each year during the 2014–2017 period — to underline the pressure placed on the CPIOs. It concluded that the penalty imposed was disproportionate to the nature of the alleged error.
Another petition was filed by Delhi-based lawyer Mohd Irsad, who had challenged the rejection of his RTI application seeking information regarding Modi’s degree. His application had been dismissed on the basis of non-payment of the RTI fee to the appropriate authority within the stipulated time.
CBSE Case on Smriti Irani’s Records Also Addressed
In addition to the DU-related matters, the High Court also examined a petition filed by the Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) against an order issued by the CIC in January 2017. The order had instructed CBSE to allow inspection of and provide certified copies (free of cost) of educational records — including the admit card and marksheet — of former BJP MP Smriti Irani, barring specific personal details.
The court set aside this CIC directive as well, ruling that the information requested also falls within the privacy exemption clause of Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.
The court reiterated that educational records, including marksheets and admit cards, are personal information.
Also Read: PM To States: “Compete In Reforms, Good Governance, Pro-Development Policies” https://www.vibesofindia.com/pm-to-states-compete-in-reforms-good-governance-pro-development-policies/
