Modi degree plea: Curiosity not public interest; RTI used for childish jabs, HC told

He also objected to being directed to divulge a degree under “the RTI Act for any of our (GU) students”.

The court of Justice Biren Vaishnav reserved the order in the petition filed by GU challenging the April 2016 order in which CIC directed the varsity to “search for information regarding degrees in the name of Mr Narendra Damodar Modi”.

In 2016, the GU had, through its registrar, filed a petition before the HC challenging the CIC order directing the university to provide the details of Modi’s degree under the RTI Act. This came after Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal wrote to the CIC to make public the information on Modi’s educational qualification.

According to Mehta, merely because the Prime Minister was holding a high office, does not mean it is of public interest. When there is no public activity involved, Mehta questioned if universities can be compelled to disclose degrees.

Arguing on the difference 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.”

Meanwhile, arguing on behalf of Kejriwal, senior advocate Percy Kavina submitted the university has no business to claim “impunity or immunity from the law on the ground that one person does not hold any high office… is outside the scope of hearing in the court”. “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),” Kavina said.