No 'Public Interest' Involved In Disclosure Of PM's Degree Details; Arvind Kejriwal Made Mockery Of RTI Act's Intent: Gujarat High Court

Setting aside the 2016 order of the Central Information Commission (CIC) directing the Gujarat University to provide information regarding degrees in the name of Prime Minister Narendra Modi to the Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal, the Gujarat High Court today held that the educational degrees of the PM are exempted from disclosure under the provisions of Section 8(1)(e) and (j) of the RTI Act in absence of any larger public interest.

With this, the bench of Justice Biren Vaishnav allowed the appeal filed by Gujarat University challenging CIC’s order.

The Court stressed that the educational qualification-related documents are nothing but personal information of the student, the disclosure of which can not be sought unless the same is in the 'public interest' and in the instant case, neither 'public interest' was pleaded nor established. 

The Court also found the reasoning of the CIC, wherein it had noted that in its order that when a citizen holding the post of Chief Minister (Arvind Kejriwal) wants to know the degree-related information of the Prime Minister (Narendra Modi), it will be proper to disclose, to be unsustainable and outside the scope of the RTI Act.

The Court also called the Commission's finding that educational qualification-related information about public authorities, public servants, or political leaders occupying constitutional positions is not hit by an exception under Section 8 of the RTI Act to be omnibus. 

"In the opinion of this court, once the Commission came to the finding that the information sought for was neither relatable to accountability and transparency in public functions discharged by Shri Narendra Damodardas Modi nor there was any larger public interest in disclosure of the said information, as in, the disclosure sought for was merely something which was of ‘interest to the public’ and a matter of political curiosity and not something which was in the public interest, then the Commission ought to have strictly applied the exemptions contemplated under section 8(e) and (j) and ought to have refused disclosure of the said information," the bench remarked.

It may be recalled the then Central Information Commissioner (Dr. Sridhar Acharyulu) “suo motu decided the controversy as regards the qualification of the Prime Minister without any proceedings pending before him”. The said suo moto order was passed by the Commission while considering an application regarding Kejriwal's electoral photo identity card.

Regarding CIC's suo moto order, the bench observed that there is no provision under the RTI Act whereby the Commission is empowered to take suo motu cognizance of any oral request made before it at an appellate stage.

In fact, the Court was of the view treating the oral request of Kejriwal, the Commission transgressed its jurisdiction and embarked into an arena of the political thicket and ventured into judicial activism on being overwhelmed by the fact that the information is sought by a citizen occupying the post of Chief Minister and thus is liable to be disclosed.

"Treating the present case an exception completely justifies the submission of the petitioner that extraneous considerations have gone into the decision making process of the Commission," the Court further observed.

Kejriwal's motive 'doubtful'

In its 79-page order, the Court also doubted the motive and bonafide of Delhi CM Kejriwal in seeking details of the Prime Minister's degree through the RTI route, as it observed thus:

"Insistence of Arvind Kejriwal to get the educational degree of Prime Minister Narendra Modi through RTI route, when the same is already available in the public domain, creates doubt on Kejriwal's bonafide and motive...he, doubtlessly used an appeal against him to kick start and trigger a controversy not falling within the purview of the RTI Act for the objects and purpose this court need not go into"

The Court noted that despite being given full opportunity to show what larger public purpose would be served in disclosing the educational degrees of PM through the RTI route when the same was already available in the public domain, Kejriwal failed to come up with a reasonable justification.

In this regard, the Court added that the term “public interest” as used in Section 8(1)(e) and (j) would mean manifest public interest and not just curiosity of the RTI Applicant.

Regarding the manner in which a request was made by CM Kejriwal, the Court noted that he was neither an Applicant nor an appellant and was merely a respondent before the CIC and this fact leaves much to be desired.

"Such requests cannot be made so casually making a mockery of the very intent and purpose of the RTI Act," the Court added.

Consequently, the Court observed that the application made by Kejriwal seeking details of PM's degree failed to qualify the public interest test contemplated in Apex Court's 2019 Judgment in the case of Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court of India vs. Subhash Chandra Agarwal, wherein it was observed that in given cases, “motive” and “purpose” may be a negative factor while applying the public interest test in case of qualified exemptions governed by the public interest test “when the motive and purpose is vexatious or it is a case of clear abuse of law”.

With this, the Court found it appropriate to impose a cost of Rs. 25K on Kejriwal as it noted that despite the degree in question being in the public domain and despite the fact that he never ever disputed the degree in question, either during the pendency of these proceedings or even during the final hearing, he persisted with the matter.

Lastly, referring to Article 75 under the Constitution of India, the Court noted that no educational qualifications have been provided for leaders in order to be eligible for election. 

Importantly, the Court said that elected leaders are fairly educated and that the experience and events in public life and the legislatures have demonstrated that the dividing line between the well-educated and less educated is rather thin.

"much depends on the character of the individual, in the sense of devotion to the duty and the concern of the welfare of the people. These characteristics are not the monopoly of the well-educated persons," the Court added.

Case title - GUJARAT UNIVERSITY vs. M SRIDHAR ACHARYULU (MADABHUSHI SRIDHAR) & 3 other(s)

Citation: 2023 Livelaw (Guj) 64

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment