Delhi HC sets aside CIC order to disclose information on PM Modi’s degree

Justice Sachin Datta, who reserved the judgement on February 27, passed the verdict on Delhi University’s plea challenging the CIC order

The Delhi High Court on Monday set aside an order of the Central Information Commission (CIC) over disclosure of the information pertaining to Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s bachelor degree.

A detailed copy of the verdict is awaited. (PTI photo)

Justice Sachin Datta, who reserved the judgement on February 27, passed the verdict on University Of Delhi’s (DU) plea challenging the CIC order.

“The impugned order is set aside,” a bench of justice Sachin Datta said while pronouncing the verdict.

A detailed copy of the verdict is awaited.

The CIC in 2016 had directed the varsity to allow various Right To Information (RTI) applicants including RTI activist Neeraj Kumar, Mohd Irshad, to inspect the records of the 1978 batch of students enrolled in the Bachelor of Arts (BA) course in the Delhi University, the year in which the PM had also passed.

The order was passed in RTI applications in which they had sought for details of the results of the 1978 batch of students. The varsity had approached the high court against CIC’s rulings. In January 2017, the high court stayed CIC’s order.

The law officer argued that disclosure of such information would not serve any “public interest” under the RTI act and was thus exempted under section 8(1) (e) and (j) of the act. While, section 8(1)(e) of the act exempts disclosure of information held in fiduciary capacity, unless its disclosure satisfies larger public interest, (j) exempts disclosure of personal information if it does not have any relationship to any public activity or interest and can cause unwarranted invasion of an individual’s privacy.

Mehta submitted that the varsity did not have a reservation in disclosing information pertaining to PM Modi’s degree to the Delhi high court, but could not expose its original records to strangers who were demanding information for publicity or oblique political motives. The right to know,

Mehta said, was not an untrammelled right and could always be curtailed by imposition of restrictions by the Parliament in larger public interest.

The RTI applicants represented by senior advocates Sanjay Hegde and Shadan Farasat had also argued that disclosure of information relating to a person’s result served public interest and that the universities did not hold information regarding a student’s degree in fiduciary capacity.

Hegde said that “elected offices” favoured disclosure of several information, like their assets, to enable a voter to make a decision and even academic qualification fell in the same category. He further submitted that the CICs order was “perfectly couched” within the ambit of the RTI act and was not erroneous.

The lawyers further argued that the university did not hold information regarding their students educational qualifications including degrees, marks and answer sheets in “fiduciary capacity”.