New Delhi: The Delhi High Court on Monday set aside a 2017 Central Information Commission (CIC) order directing the Central Board of School Education (CBSE) to disclose former Union minister Smriti Irani’s Class 10 and 12 academic records to a Right to Information (RTI) applicant, Bar and Bench reported.
Justice Sachin Datta, hearing a petition filed by the CBSE challenging the CIC’s order, observed that there was no overriding public interest in releasing such details under the RTI Act. “The concerned educational qualifications are not in the nature of any statutory requirement for holding any public office or discharging official responsibilities,” the court noted.
The judge further emphasised that merely because the information pertained to a public figure, it did not negate the right to privacy and confidentiality over personal data unrelated to public duties. Disclosure of academic details without a substantial public interest, Justice Datta said, would constitute an intrusion into the personal sphere, a right protected under the Constitution following the Supreme Court’s landmark KS Puttaswamy verdict of August 2017, which recognised privacy as a fundamental right for all Indians.
Justice Datta also warned that mandating disclosure could set a precedent for similar requests driven by “idle curiosity or sensationalism”, highlighting that the RTI Act was intended to ensure transparency in government functioning, not to provide fodder for public sensationalism.
The order was part of a batch of petitions, including one filed by Delhi University challenging another CIC directive to disclose information about Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s Bachelor of Arts degree. Delhi University contended that the RTI application was politically motivated and that the CIC’s order should be set aside.
On Monday, the High Court similarly quashed the CIC order directing the disclosure of Modi’s academic records, reiterating that personal academic details, absent any overriding public interest, do not warrant disclosure under the RTI framework.
The court’s ruling underscores the balance between transparency and privacy, confirming that public office alone does not automatically waive an individual’s constitutional right to confidentiality over personal records.