Plea on PM Modi’s degree filed only to sensationalise issue, DU tells high court

In its August 25 ruling last year, the single bench held that DU was not obliged to disclose details of Prime Minister Modi’s academic records.

The Delhi University (DU) on Tuesday told the Delhi high court that appeals seeking disclosure of Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s bachelor’s degree were filed only to sensationalise the issue, asserting that there was no merit in the matter.

Representational image.

“I’m appearing. Notice can be only issued to sensationalise something. There is nothing in the matter. This is only to sensationalise,” DU’s counsel and law officer Tushar Mehta submitted before a bench of chief justice DK Upadhyaya and justice Tejas Karia.

The submission was made in appeals filed by advocate and RTI activist Neeraj Kumar, Delhi-based lawyer Mohd Irshad — who has represented the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) in several cases before the High Court and Supreme Court — and AAP Rajya Sabha MP Sanjay Singh. The appeals challenge a single judge’s August 25, 2025 order that set aside a 2016 directive of the Central Information Commission (CIC).

In its August 25 ruling last year, the single bench held that DU was not obliged to disclose details of Prime Minister Modi’s academic records, including his undergraduate degree certificate. The court ruled that academic records fall within the scope of “personal information” protected by the fundamental right to privacy and cannot be disclosed under the Right to Information (RTI) Act unless an overriding public interest is established.

During the hearing on Tuesday, Mehta sought time to file written objections on the issue of delay in filing the appeals, as well as a response on merits. Under the Delhi High Court Rules, an appeal against a single judge’s order must be filed within 30 days. In this case, the appeals were filed on November 10, beyond the prescribed period.

Counsel for the petitioners, Shadan Farasat, urged the court to issue notice, arguing that the university had agreed to file a response on merits as well. He pointed out that although the varsity had sought time to file objections on delay, it had not done so for over two-and-a-half months. Farasat contended that the delay of 40 to 45 days was minor and could be condoned.

Mehta, however, countered that condoning the delay was not a simple matter.

After considering the submissions, the court granted DU three more weeks to file its written objections on the issue of delay in filing the appeals and fixed April 27 as the next date of hearing.

In their petitions, Neeraj Kumar, Mohd Irshad and Sanjay Singh argued that the single judge’s order suffered from fundamental errors. They contended that degree and result details serve a public interest, that universities do not hold such records in a fiduciary capacity, and that the information sought cannot be treated as “personal information” since it pertains to a degree awarded by a public authority.