Delhi High Court Shields PM Modi's Degree Details from Public Scrutiny

In a significant ruling that redefines the scope of the Right to Information (RTI) Act concerning public figures, the Delhi High Court has declared that Prime Minister Narendra Modi's degree details need not be disclosed. This decision overturns an earlier order by the Central Information Commission (CIC), sparking considerable debate across the nation regarding privacy versus public transparency.

The saga began when the CIC directed Gujarat University to provide information regarding PM Modi's educational qualifications, following an application filed under the RTI Act.

This directive was subsequently challenged by Gujarat University in the Delhi High Court, arguing that such details fall outside the ambit of public interest disclosures.

Justice Subramonium Prasad, presiding over the case, delivered a decisive verdict, emphasizing that the RTI Act should not be weaponized for 'prying' into personal information without a compelling public interest justification.

The court underscored that a person's educational qualification, particularly that of a public figure, does not automatically become a matter of public scrutiny unless there are concrete allegations of misrepresentation, fraud, or a direct link to their public duties and performance.

The judgment articulated that while transparency is a cornerstone of democracy, it must be balanced with the individual's right to privacy, even for those in high office.

The court observed that the original request for details about PM Modi's degree appeared to stem more from curiosity than from a genuine need to hold a public servant accountable for their official actions. Furthermore, the court imposed a cost on Arvind Kejriwal, who had originally sought the information, reinforcing the court's view on the misuse of the RTI mechanism in this specific context.

This ruling sets a crucial precedent, establishing boundaries for what constitutes 'public interest' under the RTI Act, especially when it pertains to personal information of public office holders.

It suggests a more nuanced interpretation, where not all information about a public figure automatically qualifies for disclosure, thereby seeking to protect individuals from unwarranted intrusion into their private lives.

While proponents of absolute transparency might view this as a setback, the court's decision highlights a fundamental aspect of legal interpretation: balancing competing rights and interests.

It reaffirms that the RTI Act, powerful as it is, must be applied judiciously, ensuring it serves its intended purpose of promoting good governance without becoming an instrument for personal vendettas or idle curiosity. The implications of this judgment are far-reaching, potentially influencing future RTI applications concerning personal details of other prominent individuals in public service.