Gujarat HC reserves order in university plea challenging CIC order on disclosure of PM Modi’s degree

Senior advocate Tushar Mehta appearing for the varsity for the first time on Thursday argued before the court of Justice Biren Vaishnav that “curiosity cannot be equated with public interest” and objected “in-principle to being directed to divulge degree under the RTI Act for any of our students”.

Mehta emphasised before the court to allow the university’s plea “with cost, otherwise we will be doing a great disservice to the (RTI) Act. The (RTI) Act is intended for something else, and it is being used for something else.

It is being used for settling scores, used for childish jabs, that is not the purpose of it”.

Arguing on the distinction between public information and personal information concerning public authorities, Mehta submitted, “The only purposeful, meaningful or literal interpretation (of exemption of disclosure as enlisted under RTI Act section 8) is, while seeking information of private nature, the information the disclosure of which should have relationship with the public activity. What breakfast I had cannot be related to public activity…You can say what expenditure was incurred by a public functionary because the disclosure is related to his public activity, nothing beyond that.”

Mehta concluded, “Question is, can universities be compelled to disclose degrees, specially when there is no public activity involved in connection with that information, and secondly in absence of a finding that public interest demands. Merely because I’m holding a high office is no public interest…”

Meanwhile, arguing on behalf of Kejriwal, who is a respondent party to the litigation before the high court, senior advocate Percy Kavina submitted, “An overreach or claiming impunity or immunity from the law on the ground that one person does not hold any high office and another person holds office, higher otherwise, is outside the scope of hearing in the court…The university has no business or locus to agitate such claims…”

Pointing out that the university does not have the locus to challenge the CIC order as it is not an affected party, Kavina further argued, “The PIO (public information officer) of PMO (Prime Minister’s Office) has not chosen to challenge this order. A person who is the subject of an order, chooses not to challenge it, and another person who is incidentally tasked with some complaint, choses to challenge it…I would submit that this person should be told (that there is an alternative remedy in Section 19 of the RTI Act — which enlists the provisions pertaining to appeal).”

Countering Kavina, Mehta submitted that regardless of the university’s locus, the appellant seeking information “may be a busybody” and will thus “have to satisfy the authority that this (information being sought) is not coming under Section 8 (exemptions from disclosure of information) and is in public interest…”