New Delhi, August 25 — The Delhi High Court on Monday quashed a Central Information Commission (CIC) order issued nearly eight years ago that had directed Delhi University (DU) to share details of Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s degree in response to a Right to Information (RTI) application.
The legal dispute, which has stretched for almost a decade, began in 2016 when an RTI applicant sought inspection of DU’s Bachelor of Arts (BA) course records from 1978, the year PM Modi is stated to have graduated according to his election affidavit. While the university denied the request citing third-party privacy rules, the CIC overruled this reasoning and ordered DU to allow inspection, calling the register of graduates a “public document” and stressing that the educational qualifications of a public figure, especially the Prime Minister, should be transparent.
The third-party privacy rule comes from Section 8(1)(j) of the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005 (India).
It basically says:
- Personal information about a third party (someone other than the RTI applicant) cannot be disclosed if it has no relationship to public activity or public interest.
- Such information is exempt if its disclosure would cause an unwarranted invasion of the privacy of that person.
- However, this restriction can be overridden if the Public Information Officer (PIO) or an appellate authority believes that larger public interest justifies disclosure.
So in the PM Modi degree case:
- Delhi University argued that releasing the academic records of 1978 would expose the personal data of thousands of students, which falls under the third-party privacy exemption.
- CIC (Central Information Commission) countered that since the degree pertains to the Prime Minister, there is significant public interest in verifying the qualification, which could override privacy concerns
DU subsequently challenged the CIC’s order before the High Court. Appearing for the university, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta argued that the right to privacy of thousands of students outweighed the public’s right to know, warning that disclosure could set a “dangerous precedent” and hinder the functioning of public authorities. While the university expressed its willingness to produce the records before the court, it opposed making them public.
Activists countered that a degree, being a qualification granted by the state, is not a private matter and falls squarely within the ambit of public interest. They further argued that the RTI Act does not consider the applicant’s motive.
The High Court, which had reserved its judgment on February 27, delivered its verdict on August 25, siding with DU and setting aside the CIC directive.
The matter is now expected to be appealed in the Supreme Court.
.png)
The opinions posted here do not belong to 🔰www.indiansdaily.com. The author is solely responsible for the opinions.
As per the IT policy of the Central Government, insults against an individual, community, religion or country, defamatory and inflammatory remarks, obscene and vulgar language are punishable offenses. Legal action will be taken for such expressions of opinion.