.webp)
The Delhi High Court on Monday quashed a Central Information Commission (CIC) order that had mandated Delhi University (DU) to reveal details of Prime Minister Narendra Modi's bachelor's degree. The court's decision relieves DU from disclosing academic records from 1978, the year Modi reportedly earned his BA in Political Science, classifying such information as personal and protected under the Right to Information (RTI) Act.
The case traces back to 2015 when RTI activist Neeraj Sharma filed an application seeking comprehensive data on all BA degrees awarded by DU in 1978. DU initially rejected the request, citing privacy concerns and arguing that the details were unrelated to any public interest. Sharma appealed to the CIC, which in December 2016 ruled in his favour. The commission, led by Information Commissioner Prof M Acharyulu, instructed DU to permit inspection of the relevant student registers, effectively allowing access to Modi's academic information among others from that batch.
This directive sparked controversy amid broader political debates. In 2016, then-Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal publicly called on Modi to release his degrees, intensifying scrutiny over the Prime Minister's educational qualifications as listed in his election affidavits. DU promptly challenged the CIC's decision in the High Court in January 2017, securing an immediate stay on the order. The university contended that it held student records in a fiduciary capacity, safeguarding sensitive data for millions, and that disclosure would violate privacy norms without serving a legitimate public purpose.
During hearings, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing DU, stressed that the right to privacy under Article 21 of the Constitution overrides the right to know. He warned that unchecked RTI requests could overwhelm public institutions, turning the Act into a tool for harassment or political agendas. "Public authorities will not be able to exercise their purpose if such applications are entertained," Mehta argued, highlighting the potential for misuse in searching old documents. He also noted that while DU was open to sharing information with the court, exposing original records to outsiders for sensational motives was untenable.
Opposing this, Senior Advocate Sanjay Hegde, for the RTI applicant, maintained that educational credentials of public figures fall under public scrutiny, akin to asset disclosures for informed voter decisions. He described the CIC order as well-aligned with RTI principles, arguing that degrees are not strictly fiduciary and should be accessible regardless of the individual's status.
Justice Sachin Datta, who reserved judgment in February, delivered the verdict setting aside the CIC directive. The court classified degrees, marks, and related records as "personal information" exempt under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, unless an overriding public interest is proven. It distinguished between public curiosity and genuine public interest, stating that the Act promotes government transparency, not fodder for sensationalism. "Disregarding the mandate... would inexorably lead to demands for personal information... without any real public interest," the bench observed, invoking the Supreme Court's privacy ruling in the Puttaswamy case.
The ruling also addressed a connected plea involving former Union Minister Smriti Irani's school records, similarly quashing a CIC order for CBSE disclosures. Experts say this precedent strengthens privacy protections for personal data, even for elected officials, potentially curbing frivolous RTI filings. However, critics argue it may hinder accountability, especially when qualifications are self-declared in official documents.
