Modi’s degree: DU says it is private, not public interest; can’t be disclosed out of curiosity

Delhi University on Tuesday objected to a Central Information Commission (CIC) directive seeking records of students who had cleared the BA programme in 1978, the year PM Modi was said to have graduated from the university. The university argued that educational qualifications are a private matter for a student and cannot be of public interest, which comes under the purview of the RTI.

The University contended before the Delhi High Court that mere public curiosity could not be equated with public interest, maintaining that educational qualifications fall under the category of personal information and arguing that no one could demand such details under the Right to Information (RTI) Act merely out of curiosity, The Indian Express reported.

Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta, appearing on behalf of DU, asserted that the university holds students’ degrees and marksheets in a fiduciary capacity and contended that a degree is a student’s personal information, which cannot be disclosed unless it serves a public interest.

The submission was made in response to a 2017 petition filed by DU challenging the CIC’s order directing the inspection of records of students who had passed the BA programme in 1978.

Mehta argued that an individual could not simply demand details about a particular student out of curiosity and said that the case represented a classic example of a “busybody” misusing the RTI Act. He maintained that a university is obligated to deny the disclosure of private information unless it pertains to the public interest and stated that educational qualifications are considered personal in nature.

He further asserted that the RTI Act was being abused and misused, and the designation of an RTI activist had become a means of seeking unnecessary information.

“Mere curiosity that ‘I want to know about it, what is your objection’ cannot be an argument,” Mehta said, adding that while the public may be interested in certain details, that does not necessarily mean the matter involves public interest. He maintained that in the facts of the present case, there was no public interest involved.

To support his argument, Mehta cited a 2023 ruling by the Gujarat High Court, which had quashed a CIC order directing Gujarat University to search for information regarding Prime Minister Modi’s degree on the grounds that educational degrees are exempt from disclosure under the RTI Act.

Meanwhile, senior advocate Sanjay Hegde, representing the RTI applicant who had sought the information from DU, countered the argument by asserting that such information is public in nature and has historically been displayed on noticeboards and published in newspapers.

He argued that degrees are an essential part of public records since they serve as the basis for various decisions, including employment and matrimonial considerations.

Hegde further contended that whether a person has passed or failed an examination is a matter of public interest and stated that offices requiring specific qualifications must ensure transparency in such matters.

He argued that public interest weighs in favour of disclosure rather than concealment, especially when it concerns individuals holding elected office since disclosures regarding their assets, liabilities, and qualifications are necessary for accountability.