[PM Modi Degree Row] No Public Interest, Mere Curiosity Not Enough To Approach RTI Forums: Delhi University To High Court

In the case related to Prime Minister Narendra Modi's academic degree, the Delhi University on Tuesday told the Delhi High Court that mere curiosity is not enough to approach Right to Information (RTI) forums.

SGI Tushar Mehta made the submission on behalf of the varsity before Justice Sachin Datta. 

The Court was hearing DU's plea filed in 2017 challenging an order of the Central Information Commission (CIC) directing it to allow inspection of records of the students who had passed BA programme in 1978, when Prime Minister Narendra Modi is also stated to have cleared the examination. The order was stayed on the first date of hearing on January 24 in 2017.

“Here is a case where a stranger walks into the RTI office of University and says, out of 10 lakh students, give me degree of X. The question is whether anyone can walk in and ask for degrees of others?,” Mehta said.

The SG further said that mere curiosity that an individual wants personal details of some person is no argument for disclosure of such information under the RTI Act.

“Public may get interested in something but that is not public interest…. Is there any public interest? The answer in the facts of this case will be no…,” he said.

SG Mehta also submitted that a third party cannot walk in and say that he wants personal details of someone merely because he is curious.

“This is a classic case…not only the applicant who has applied for the information is a busy body…. I am on principles. It can be Tushar Mehta's degree. It can be anybody else's degree. It is my personal information….. Mere curiosity is not enough to approch RTI forums,” Mehta said.

While concluding his arguments, SG Mehta also vehemently opposed intervention applications filed in the case. He submitted that such applications cannot be filed by strangers to the proceedings, especially in a quo warranto writ.

“RTI activist is a designation by itself. People now have visiting cards. It is a designation by itself, a profession. I am not going into it but this Act serves good purpose but it has its pitfalls and it is being misused. And Courts have in so many words have alerted everyone…,” he said.

Mehta also referred to the decision of Gujarat High Court quashing a 2016 order of the CIC directing the Gujarat University to provide “information regarding degrees in the name of Mr. Narendra Damodar Modi" to former Delhi Chief Minister and AAP Supremo Arvind Kejriwal.

Mehta said that the LPA against the single judge order is pending without any stay on the decision.

During the hearing, the counsel appearing for one of the interveners made submissions in the intervention application. However, Justice Datta orally remarked that he was not willing to allow the application but can permit the intervener to file written submissions in the matter which may be considered by the Court.

“Give written submissions and I'll consider it but I won't hear arguments…. I am not hearing a PIL…. The best I can do is you file written submissions and I'll consider,” the Court said.

Senior Advocate Sanjay Hegde appearing for RTI applicant Neeraj submitted that the information as sought in the matter would normally be published by any University and used to be published on notice boards, varsity's website and even newspapers.

“This is the information which is the basis on which people make decisions. It is based on a bachelors degree in arts that I can seek an admission in LLB. It is based on several other decisions. Even matrimonial decisions are made. The fact that this relates to an old degree does not in any way immunize information being republished,” he said.

Hegde further submitted that in the RTI application, a “non-specific” information has been asked but there is a “blanket denial” of its disclosure by the Delhi University citing Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act- information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest.

“Whether a person has passed or failed an examination, there is definitely public interest in its disclosure. There may be officers which require qualification. There may be offices which do not require qualification. For instance, supposing the Solicitor General or I were to be in any constitutional position which required a degree in law. Now if there is doubt on the degree of any kind, public interest weighs towards the disclosure and public interest weighs against concealment. As far as public interest is concerned, even in case of politicians holding elected office, the Supreme Court has already held that it requires disclosures of a lot of things, including assets and liabilities…,” Hegde submitted.

He added: “Here when it comes to question of academic qualification of a person, it doesn't matter if the person says I've no academic qualification or if he says I have qualifications or I went to the university but dropped out. Any of that, a straight disclosure does not have consequences. But the consequences which the person is entitled to know if there is concealment. When it comes to question of concealment, what does a public authority which has information, what is it obliged to do?“

Hegde then opposed the submission made by SG Mehta that information of students was held by a university in a “fiduciary capacity” and could not be divulged “to a stranger” as the same is exempted from disclosure in law.

“If I were to tell the University that I need help of a scribe because though I look alright but I'm visually challenged. This is external information which I have, which I give and say hold it in trust for me. Marks- passing or failing, are not external information or pre existing information which is given in fiduciary relationship. These are things generated in the University process,” Hegde submitted.

“There is no error in law which warrants your lordships intervention under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,” he added while concluding his submissions.

The matter will now be heard next week when the Court will hear submissions of other petitioners on the issue.

Earlier, the varsity had argued that the purpose of RTI Act is not to satisfy someone's curiosity and that the RTI law cannot be misused by ordering disclosure of information which is “unrelated” to the transparency and accountability in functioning of public authorities.

About the Controversy

RTI Activist Neeraj Kumar had filed an RTI application seeking result of all the students who appeared in BA in 1978 alongwith their roll number, name, marks and result pass or failed.

The Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) of the DU denied the information on the ground it qualified as "third party information". The RTI activist then filed an appeal before the CIC.

CIC in the order passed in 2016 said: "Having examined the case, the synonymous legislations and previous decisions, the Commission states that matters relating to education of a student (current/former) fall under the public domain and hence order the relevant public authority to disclose information accordingly."

The CIC had observed that every University is a public body and that all degree related information is available in the varsity's private register, which is a public document.

Before the High Court, Delhi University, on the first date of hearing in 2017, contended that it had no difficulty in providing the information sought on the total number of students who appeared, passed or failed in the said examination.

However, on the prayer seeking details of the results of all students along with roll numbers, names with father names and marks, the varsity argued that such information was exempted from disclosure.

It was argued that the same contained personal information of all the students who had perused in BA in 1978, and that the information was held in fiduciary capacity.

Title: University of Delhi v. Neeraj Kumar