‘PM Modi’s degree personal information’: Gujarat High Court rejects Kejriwal plea

Sections 8(1)(e) and 8(1)(j) of the Right to Information Act, 2005, provide legal exemptions that allow public authorities to refuse the disclosure of information involving fiduciary relationships and personal privacy.

“The fact that the information about the educational degree of the Prime Minister is already in the public domain, as noted by the CIC (Central Information Commission), has no relevance in so far as the consideration of obligations under the RTI Act,” the order added.

Appearing for Kejriwal, Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, assisted by advocate Amum K Kotwal, challenged the remarks made by the single judge that the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leader had continued the case despite Gujarat University having already put the degrees on its website. He also sought removal of the Rs 25,000 cost imposed on Kejriwal.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for Gujarat University, opposed Kejriwal’s plea and defended the single judge’s order, including the observations and cost imposed on him.

The court said statutory authorities and courts should not be treated as a public platform to ventilate political vengeance. It added that a political leader holding public office cannot use legal proceedings for their political motives.

The court stated that the RTI Act envisages access to information held by public authorities, with the right to seek specific information available to a person seeking it under the Act. In the absence of a proper request in writing submitted to the public information officer of the concerned public authority, there is no question for any authority established under the RTI Act, 2005, to provide any information to anyone. 

The bench said that the directions of the information commissioner requiring the PMO to provide the specific number and year of the degree and PG degree to the Delhi University and Gujarat University office to facilitate the university to search and provide any documents relating to it, and further directing the public information officer of the Delhi University and the Gujarat University (the original petitioner) to search for the information regarding the degrees and provide them to the appellant, were “directly hit by Section 8(1)(e) and (j) of the RTI Act, 2005”.

“None of the information directed to be disclosed can be said to be necessary for disclosure in public interest or larger public interest,” it said.

The bench went on to add, “Even a public servant being a citizen of the country cannot be compelled to disclose his personal information to the public merely because he is holding a public office or is a public servant, unless and until there is an obligation upon him to disclose or the public authority with whom the information is available is obliged to disclose under the RTI Act, 2005.”