Gujarat high court dismisses Delhi CM’s plea on PM Modi’s degree disclosure

The court said that a review is not permitted for the mere repetition of old arguments or minor mistakes

Ahmedabad:The Gujarat High Court on Thursday dismissed Delhi chief minister Arvind Kejriwal’s plea challenging the court’s March 31 ruling that Gujarat University was not obligated to provide information regarding Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s academic degree.

The Gujarat High Court in Ahmedabad. (HT Photo)

Kejriwal had filed a review plea following the Gujarat High Court’s reversal of a 2016 Central Information Commission (CIC) order that mandated Gujarat University to provide details of Modi’s degree. The CIC order was passed on an application by Kejriwal under the Right to Information Act (RTI Act).

“This court is of the opinion that once a finding is recorded by the competent court after hearing a particular litigant, the litigant can only take his legal remedy and recourse to law as may be available in law. The court is conscious that seeking a review is and could be a remedy available in law but looking to the grounds and the arguments raised before this court in the review application, it cannot be said that the applicant has sought to invoke this remedy purely with a view to seeking legal recourse,” Justice Biren Vaishnaw said in an 18-page order on Thursday. HT has reviewed a copy of the order.

The court said that a review is not permitted for the mere repetition of old arguments or minor mistakes.

“Review is not maintainable unless the material error, manifest on the face of the order, undermines its soundness or results in miscarriage of justice,” it said. The court also emphasises that the possibility of differing views or the appreciation of evidence falls outside the scope of review proceedings.

The defamation case was filed over Kejriwal’s comments after the Gujarat high court in March set aside the CIC’s order asking the university to provide information on Modi’s degree. The high court slapped a ₹25,000 fine on Kejriwal, who sought the information.

Senior Advocate Percy Kavina appearing for Kejriwal had argued that that the court’s order in March claiming the degree was displayed on the website is factually incorrect. Upon examination, the website only shows a document called “OR” (Office Register), not the degree, he said. This misinformation, leading to the court’s observation that the applicant should have ended the controversy, constitutes an apparent error on the record, according to Kavina.

Gujarat University argued that the Right To Information (RTI) Act was being misused for settling scores and for taking childish jabs at opponents. The university also told the court that the CIC order also affects the PM’s privacy. Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta who appeared for GU in his earlier argument had said that “irresponsible childish curiosity cannot be said as public interest”.

Mehta argued that the university has already put the certificate in the public domain and there was no obligation to give a copy of the university degree of the Prime Minister to any third person under the RTI.

In 2016, GU, through its registrar, had filed a petition before the Gujarat High Court challenging the CIC order. The Commission’s order came after Kejriwal had written a letter to CIC to make public details of Modi’s educational qualifications.

Senior advocate Kavina argued that imposition of costs of Rs.25,000 was based on wrong factual assertions. He said that the observations of the court that the applicant “used an appeal against him to kickstart and trigger a controversy not falling within the purview of the RTI Act” and that the applicant had made an “absolutely casual application” are wrong as the applicant was not the initiator of any of the proceedings but was only a respondent. “That no application was filed by him for any information. The proceedings were suo motu taken up by the CIC which clearly indicates that the applicant never persisted with the matter,” Kavina told the Gujarat high court.

In his arguments in the review petition matter, Solicitor General Mehta submitted before the court that as per the provisions of Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, “the CIC had not even recorded the reasons to suggest as to what was the overwhelming public interest which required sharing the personal information of the degree of the Hon’ble Prime Minister when such information was expressly exempted in light of the provisions of Section 8 of the Act.”

He said that the applicant Kejriwal had not even mentioned the public interest in the letter/application, a question of law was posed by the University in the petition to submit whether the CIC had acted within the framework of law.