Law Beat: New Delhi: Wednesday, 29 April 2026.
The Delhi High Court on Monday granted an additional two weeks to Delhi University to file its objections in connection with applications seeking condonation of delay in appeals concerning the disclosure of Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s bachelor’s degree records.
The development comes in
an ongoing legal battle that sits at the intersection of transparency under the
Right to Information framework and the protection of personal academic records.
The matter is currently being heard by a Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela.
During an earlier hearing in February 2026, the Bench had granted three weeks’ time to Delhi University to respond to the delay condonation applications and had listed the matter for April 27. However, with the university seeking further time, the Court has now extended the deadline by two additional weeks, signalling that the issue of delay remains a threshold question before the appeals can be considered on merits.
The matter originated from a Right to Information application filed by activist Neeraj Sharma, who had sought access to records of all students who cleared the Bachelor of Arts examination in 1978, the same year in which Prime Minister Modi is believed to have graduated from Delhi University.
Acting on this application, the Central Information Commission, in an order dated December 21, 2016, permitted inspection of such records. The CIC’s decision was widely debated, as it raised questions about the extent to which academic records, even of public figures, could be disclosed under the RTI Act.
The matter took a significant turn on August 25, 2024, when a single judge of the Delhi High Court set aside the CIC’s direction. The Court, in that ruling, effectively barred the disclosure of the records in question, thereby giving precedence to considerations of privacy and institutional control over academic data.
This decision prompted multiple appeals before the Division Bench.
The appeals have been filed by several petitioners, including Aam Aadmi Party MP Sanjay Singh, RTI activist Neeraj Sharma, and advocate Mohd Irshad. They have argued that the single judge’s order suffers from fundamental legal infirmities and that the CIC’s directive allowing inspection of records ought to be restored.
According to the appellants, transparency in public life, especially concerning elected representatives, is an essential component of democratic accountability.
However, before the Division Bench can examine the substantive issues raised in the appeals, it must first determine whether the delay in filing them can be condoned.
This procedural aspect has assumed central importance in the proceedings. In November 2025, the High Court had already flagged the delay and directed Delhi University to file its response explaining the reasons for not filing objections within the prescribed time.
The Court’s decision to grant additional time suggests a cautious approach, ensuring that all parties are given adequate opportunity to present their case before any determination is made.
The outcome of the delay condonation applications will be crucial, as it will decide whether the appeals are maintainable and whether the Court will proceed to adjudicate the larger legal questions involved.
The case continues to generate public and legal interest, as it touches upon broader issues such as the scope of the RTI Act, the balance between transparency and privacy, and the extent to which personal records of public figures can be subject to public scrutiny.
It also raises questions about institutional responsibilities in maintaining and disclosing archival academic data.
The Court’s eventual ruling on both the procedural and substantive aspects is likely to have significant implications for future RTI-related disputes involving personal information and public accountability.
Case Title: University of Delhi v. Neeraj
The Delhi High Court on Monday granted an additional two weeks to Delhi University to file its objections in connection with applications seeking condonation of delay in appeals concerning the disclosure of Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s bachelor’s degree records.
The matter is currently being heard by a Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela.
During an earlier hearing in February 2026, the Bench had granted three weeks’ time to Delhi University to respond to the delay condonation applications and had listed the matter for April 27. However, with the university seeking further time, the Court has now extended the deadline by two additional weeks, signalling that the issue of delay remains a threshold question before the appeals can be considered on merits.
The matter originated from a Right to Information application filed by activist Neeraj Sharma, who had sought access to records of all students who cleared the Bachelor of Arts examination in 1978, the same year in which Prime Minister Modi is believed to have graduated from Delhi University.
Acting on this application, the Central Information Commission, in an order dated December 21, 2016, permitted inspection of such records. The CIC’s decision was widely debated, as it raised questions about the extent to which academic records, even of public figures, could be disclosed under the RTI Act.
The matter took a significant turn on August 25, 2024, when a single judge of the Delhi High Court set aside the CIC’s direction. The Court, in that ruling, effectively barred the disclosure of the records in question, thereby giving precedence to considerations of privacy and institutional control over academic data.
This decision prompted multiple appeals before the Division Bench.
The appeals have been filed by several petitioners, including Aam Aadmi Party MP Sanjay Singh, RTI activist Neeraj Sharma, and advocate Mohd Irshad. They have argued that the single judge’s order suffers from fundamental legal infirmities and that the CIC’s directive allowing inspection of records ought to be restored.
According to the appellants, transparency in public life, especially concerning elected representatives, is an essential component of democratic accountability.
However, before the Division Bench can examine the substantive issues raised in the appeals, it must first determine whether the delay in filing them can be condoned.
This procedural aspect has assumed central importance in the proceedings. In November 2025, the High Court had already flagged the delay and directed Delhi University to file its response explaining the reasons for not filing objections within the prescribed time.
The Court’s decision to grant additional time suggests a cautious approach, ensuring that all parties are given adequate opportunity to present their case before any determination is made.
The outcome of the delay condonation applications will be crucial, as it will decide whether the appeals are maintainable and whether the Court will proceed to adjudicate the larger legal questions involved.
The case continues to generate public and legal interest, as it touches upon broader issues such as the scope of the RTI Act, the balance between transparency and privacy, and the extent to which personal records of public figures can be subject to public scrutiny.
It also raises questions about institutional responsibilities in maintaining and disclosing archival academic data.
The Court’s eventual ruling on both the procedural and substantive aspects is likely to have significant implications for future RTI-related disputes involving personal information and public accountability.
Case Title: University of Delhi v. Neeraj
.JPG)
.JPG)
