The Crossbill Team
The Delhi High Court on Monday set aside a 2017 order of the Central Information Commission (CIC) directing Delhi University (DU) to disclose information about Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s educational qualification.
Justice Sachin Datta, while allowing DU’s appeal, observed, “CIC order is set aside,” effectively overturning the directive that required the university to furnish records of students who cleared the Bachelor of Arts (BA) course in 1978, the year Modi is said to have graduated in political science, Bar and Bench reported.
The case dates back to 2016, when activist Neeraj Sharma filed a Right to Information (RTI) request seeking details of all BA degrees awarded by DU in 1978. The university rejected the request, terming the information “private” and unrelated to “public interest.”
Sharma then approached the CIC, which directed DU to make the register of students public. The order came at a time when the authenticity of Modi’s degree was being questioned by political rivals, with then Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal demanding that the Prime Minister “come clean about his educational degrees” and “make them public.”
Challenging the CIC directive, DU moved the High Court in January 2017. The court issued notice to Sharma and stayed the order after Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing DU, argued that such disclosure would set a damaging precedent.
“In Puttaswamy case, there was one conclusion, unanimously passed, that right to privacy is protected under Article 21. Right to privacy supersedes right to know,” Mehta was quoted by Bar and Bench as saying.
He asserted that personal information cannot be sought under the RTI Act.
Mehta further contended that demands for disclosure of decades-old degree records were politically motivated.
“The authority will have to decide what is your interest. They say that in public interest it needs to be given. Somebody has passed out in 1978. It is not relatable to his public duty, you are wanting to use it for political purpose,” he argued.
Warning against misuse of the transparency law, he added, “Public authorities will not be able to exercise their purpose if such applications are entertained. People would be searching old documents, would be bogged down. RTI Act cannot be used as a tool to intimidate officers doing their duty.”
He also took aim at applicants filing multiple petitions, remarking, “You have made a mockery out of the RTI Act. If a public functionary is receiving thousands of applications, the minimum Rs 10 charge as per statute will be required. You cannot have the luxury of filing RTI in the manner you like.”
Senior advocate Sanjay Hegde, appearing for Sharma, contested the claim that DU held degree details in a fiduciary capacity.
“If I were to tell the universe I need help of a scribe, I need to get my way around but I am visually challenged, this is fiduciary. Marks are not external information. If I go to the driving test, the pass or fail information is external. That fiduciary relation does not come with the evaluated paper with university,” he argued.
Hegde stressed that the information officer was bound to consider whether disclosure would cause public harm or public good, adding, “Degree related information is in public domain. Access to information has to be provided for ordinary man or celebrity.”
Justice Sachin Datta, while allowing DU’s appeal, observed, “CIC order is set aside,” effectively overturning the directive that required the university to furnish records of students who cleared the Bachelor of Arts (BA) course in 1978, the year Modi is said to have graduated in political science, Bar and Bench reported.
The case dates back to 2016, when activist Neeraj Sharma filed a Right to Information (RTI) request seeking details of all BA degrees awarded by DU in 1978. The university rejected the request, terming the information “private” and unrelated to “public interest.”
Sharma then approached the CIC, which directed DU to make the register of students public. The order came at a time when the authenticity of Modi’s degree was being questioned by political rivals, with then Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal demanding that the Prime Minister “come clean about his educational degrees” and “make them public.”
Challenging the CIC directive, DU moved the High Court in January 2017. The court issued notice to Sharma and stayed the order after Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing DU, argued that such disclosure would set a damaging precedent.
“In Puttaswamy case, there was one conclusion, unanimously passed, that right to privacy is protected under Article 21. Right to privacy supersedes right to know,” Mehta was quoted by Bar and Bench as saying.
He asserted that personal information cannot be sought under the RTI Act.
Mehta further contended that demands for disclosure of decades-old degree records were politically motivated.
“The authority will have to decide what is your interest. They say that in public interest it needs to be given. Somebody has passed out in 1978. It is not relatable to his public duty, you are wanting to use it for political purpose,” he argued.
Warning against misuse of the transparency law, he added, “Public authorities will not be able to exercise their purpose if such applications are entertained. People would be searching old documents, would be bogged down. RTI Act cannot be used as a tool to intimidate officers doing their duty.”
He also took aim at applicants filing multiple petitions, remarking, “You have made a mockery out of the RTI Act. If a public functionary is receiving thousands of applications, the minimum Rs 10 charge as per statute will be required. You cannot have the luxury of filing RTI in the manner you like.”
Senior advocate Sanjay Hegde, appearing for Sharma, contested the claim that DU held degree details in a fiduciary capacity.
“If I were to tell the universe I need help of a scribe, I need to get my way around but I am visually challenged, this is fiduciary. Marks are not external information. If I go to the driving test, the pass or fail information is external. That fiduciary relation does not come with the evaluated paper with university,” he argued.
Hegde stressed that the information officer was bound to consider whether disclosure would cause public harm or public good, adding, “Degree related information is in public domain. Access to information has to be provided for ordinary man or celebrity.”
Comments (0)
Leave a Comment