Delhi High Court Upholds Privacy, Sets Aside Order on PM Modi's Degree Disclosure

In a landmark judgment that reiterates the fine balance between transparency and individual privacy, the Delhi High Court has decisively set aside an earlier directive by the Central Information Commission (CIC) regarding the disclosure of Prime Minister Narendra Modi's educational qualifications.

This significant ruling asserts that there is no overriding public interest that necessitates revealing the Prime Minister's degree details, thereby upholding the sanctity of personal information.

The controversy first ignited when the CIC had ordered Gujarat University to furnish details of PM Modi's postgraduate degree following an an application by Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal.

This order had sparked considerable debate across political and public spheres, with proponents arguing for greater transparency from public figures and critics raising concerns about the potential for vexatious requests and privacy infringements.

However, the Delhi High Court, after carefully deliberating on the matter, concluded that the CIC's initial order was misdirected.

The court emphasized that while the Right to Information (RTI) Act is a powerful tool for promoting transparency, it cannot be weaponized to pry into personal details without a genuine, demonstrated public interest that outweighs an individual's right to privacy. The bench pointed out that the information sought, pertaining to academic qualifications, did not fall under the purview of information that must be compulsorily disclosed under the RTI Act in this particular context.

Further strengthening its stance, the High Court also imposed a cost on Arvind Kejriwal, noting that his persistent pursuit of this information appeared to be politically motivated and lacked genuine public service intent.

This aspect of the judgment serves as a stern reminder against the misuse of the RTI framework for personal or political vendettas, urging applicants to exercise prudence and genuine intent when seeking information.

This ruling is poised to have considerable implications for how RTI applications concerning personal details of public figures are handled in the future.

It underscores a judicial inclination towards protecting individual privacy, even for those in the highest offices, unless there is a clear and compelling case for public disclosure that genuinely serves democratic accountability. The judgment reinforces that not all information, even about public servants, is automatically deemed to be in the public domain, thereby setting a crucial precedent for future requests under the transparency law.

Ultimately, the Delhi High Court's decision reaffirms that while transparency is vital for a healthy democracy, it must coexist with the fundamental right to privacy.

It draws a clear line, indicating that the personal academic records of a public figure do not automatically translate into a matter of public interest warranting mandatory disclosure, especially when such requests appear driven by motives other than genuine public good.