Delhi High Court Upholds DU's Stance, Blocks Disclosure of PM Modi's Degree Records

In a landmark decision that has significant implications for privacy under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, the Delhi High Court has delivered a major victory to Delhi University. The court firmly set aside an earlier directive from the Central Information Commission (CIC) which had mandated the university to disclose details concerning Prime Minister Narendra Modi's Bachelor of Arts degree.

The contentious issue, which originated from an RTI application filed by Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal, saw the court emphasize that the academic records of a public figure, particularly private information, are not automatically subject to public disclosure.

Justice Subramonium Prasad, presiding over the case, underscored that such information could only be revealed if a larger public interest was clearly demonstrated, a condition he found was not met in this instance.

Further adding to the repercussions for the original applicant, the High Court also imposed costs of Rs 25,000 on Arvind Kejriwal.

This penalty was levied for what the court deemed an inappropriate use of the RTI mechanism, asserting that the request fell outside the legitimate scope of public interest required for breaching personal privacy.

The core of the court's ruling hinged on the interpretation of specific sections of the RTI Act.

Justice Prasad declared that the information sought was exempt from disclosure under Sections 8(1)(e) and 8(1)(j) of the Act. These sections protect information held in a fiduciary relationship and personal information whose disclosure has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual, respectively.

During the proceedings, Delhi University had consistently argued against the disclosure, maintaining that the information was private and protected.

The university, alongside Gujarat University, had previously confirmed that PM Modi received a BA degree from DU in 1978 and an MA degree from GU in 1983. However, the exact details and academic records were what the RTI sought to scrutinize.

This judgment not only reinforces the protection of personal data under the RTI Act but also serves as a crucial reminder of the boundaries within which public figures' private information can be sought.

It underscores that the right to information, while vital for transparency, is not absolute and must be balanced against an individual's right to privacy, especially when a clear public interest is not established.