BW Legal World: New Delhi: Thursday, 21 August 2025.
The controversy began in 2016 when RTI activist Neeraj Kumar sought details of all students who appeared for the BA examination in 1978
The Delhi High Court has
deferred its decision on a plea filed by Delhi University challenging the order
of the Central Information Commission which directed disclosure of records
related to Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s bachelor’s degree. Justice Sachin
Datta who was expected to deliver the verdict did not hold court as he was
presiding over proceedings of the UAPA tribunal. The judgment is now scheduled
to be pronounced on August 25.
The controversy began in 2016 when RTI activist Neeraj Kumar sought details of all students who appeared for the BA examination in 1978. This included roll numbers names marks and results. The Central Public Information Officer of Delhi University refused the request on the ground that it involved third party information. Kumar then approached the CIC which allowed inspection of the records. The Commission reasoned that educational qualifications fall within the public domain and that such information has historically been accessible through notice boards and publications of universities.
Delhi University challenged this order before the High Court in 2017. The University argued that while it could share the total number of students who appeared and the number of those who passed or failed it could not disclose individual details such as roll numbers names and marks. The counsel for DU argued that this information was personal to students and was held in a fiduciary capacity.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta appeared for the University and argued that the CIC order should be set aside. He argued that the right to privacy is stronger than the right to know in this case. He also said that the University has no hesitation in showing the relevant record to the Court itself but could not release it for scrutiny by outsiders. Mehta added that mere curiosity cannot justify invoking the Right to Information Act. He submitted before the Court that there exists a degree from 1978 of bachelor of arts linked to the Prime Minister.
On the other side, senior advocate Sanjay Hegde appeared for the RTI applicant. He argued that the disclosure was justified since details of educational qualifications are not confidential by nature. He said that in earlier times universities would publish such details on notice boards and even in newspapers. He also opposed the claim that the University holds such records in fiduciary capacity as these are public documents maintained by a public body.
The controversy began in 2016 when RTI activist Neeraj Kumar sought details of all students who appeared for the BA examination in 1978
The controversy began in 2016 when RTI activist Neeraj Kumar sought details of all students who appeared for the BA examination in 1978. This included roll numbers names marks and results. The Central Public Information Officer of Delhi University refused the request on the ground that it involved third party information. Kumar then approached the CIC which allowed inspection of the records. The Commission reasoned that educational qualifications fall within the public domain and that such information has historically been accessible through notice boards and publications of universities.
Delhi University challenged this order before the High Court in 2017. The University argued that while it could share the total number of students who appeared and the number of those who passed or failed it could not disclose individual details such as roll numbers names and marks. The counsel for DU argued that this information was personal to students and was held in a fiduciary capacity.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta appeared for the University and argued that the CIC order should be set aside. He argued that the right to privacy is stronger than the right to know in this case. He also said that the University has no hesitation in showing the relevant record to the Court itself but could not release it for scrutiny by outsiders. Mehta added that mere curiosity cannot justify invoking the Right to Information Act. He submitted before the Court that there exists a degree from 1978 of bachelor of arts linked to the Prime Minister.
On the other side, senior advocate Sanjay Hegde appeared for the RTI applicant. He argued that the disclosure was justified since details of educational qualifications are not confidential by nature. He said that in earlier times universities would publish such details on notice boards and even in newspapers. He also opposed the claim that the University holds such records in fiduciary capacity as these are public documents maintained by a public body.
.JPG)
.JPG)
