Student Degrees are 'Personal Information' Exempt from RTI Disclosure, Rules Delhi High Court in Landmark Judgment

New Delhi - In a significant ruling clarifying the conflict between the Right to Information (RTI) and the Right to Privacy, the Delhi High Court has held that educational qualifications, including degrees, results, and mark sheets, constitute "personal information" and are held by universities in a "fiduciary capacity." The court, therefore, ruled that such information is exempt from disclosure to third parties under Sections 8(1)(j) and 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act, 2005, unless a compelling larger public interest is demonstrated.

The judgment, delivered by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sachin Datta , quashed several orders of the Central Information Commission (CIC) that had directed the University of Delhi and the Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) to disclose student records, including those pertaining to prominent public figures.

Case Background

The court heard a batch of six interconnected writ petitions filed by the University of Delhi and CBSE challenging various orders from the CIC. These orders stemmed from RTI applications seeking: - The Bachelor of Arts (B.A.) results of all students from the year 1978 from Delhi University. - The Class X and XII records of former Union HRD Minister Smt. Smriti Irani from CBSE. - Degree and academic records of specific students, including one believed to be of Prime Minister Shri Narendra Modi.

The CIC had consistently ruled that since universities and boards are public bodies performing public functions, degree-related information is public and must be disclosed. It rejected the institutions' claims of fiduciary relationship and personal privacy, leading to the present legal challenge.

Key Arguments

Petitioners (University of Delhi & CBSE):

- Fiduciary Relationship: Represented by Solicitor General Mr. Tushar Mehta, the petitioners argued that the relationship between a student and a university is fiduciary. The university holds academic records in trust and confidence, making them exempt under Section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act.

- Personal Information & Privacy: It was contended that a student's marks, grades, and degree are inherently personal information. Disclosure to unrelated third parties would be an unwarranted invasion of privacy, protected under Section 8(1)(j) and the fundamental Right to Privacy (Article 21) established in the K.S. Puttaswamy judgment.

- No Overriding Public Interest: The petitioners asserted that the RTI applicants failed to demonstrate any larger public interest that would justify overriding these exemptions. Mere public curiosity does not equate to public interest.

Respondents (RTI Applicants):

- Public Function: Senior Advocates Mr. Sanjay Hegde and Mr. Rahul Mehra argued that awarding degrees is a public activity by a public authority, making the records public documents.

- No Fiduciary Relationship: Citing the Supreme Court's decision in CBSE v. Aditya Bandopadhyay , they contended that no fiduciary relationship exists between an examining body and a student concerning examination results.

- Lapse of Time (Section 8(3)): It was argued that since the information sought in some cases was over 20 years old (e.g., 1978 results), the exemptions under Section 8(1)(e) and 8(1)(j) would not apply due to the time-lapse provision in Section 8(3).

Court's Analysis and Precedents

Justice Sachin Datta undertook a detailed analysis of the RTI Act's framework, balancing the right to information with the constitutional right to privacy.

On Fiduciary Duty and Personal Information: The court heavily relied on the Constitution Bench judgment in Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court of India v. Subhash Chandra Agarwal (2020) , which decisively settled the issue. The High Court quoted the Supreme Court's finding:

"Reading of the aforesaid judicial precedents, in our opinion, would indicate that personal records, including name, address, physical, mental and psychological status, marks obtained, grades and answer sheets, are all treated as personal information. Such personal information is entitled to protection from unwarranted invasion of privacy and conditional access is available when stipulation of larger public interest is satisfied."

The court held that the relationship between a university and its students has several fiduciary aspects, involving trust, confidence, and a duty of care. Information entrusted by students is held in confidence, attracting the exemption under Section 8(1)(e).

Distinguishing Public Interest from Public Curiosity: The judgment emphasized the critical distinction between what is "of interest to the public" and what is "in the public interest." Citing Subhash Chandra Agarwal , the court noted:

"Public interest in access to information refers to something that is in the interest of the public welfare to know. Public welfare is widely different from what is of interest to the public... The public may be interested in private matters with which the public may have no concern and pressing need to know."

Applying this test, the court found no demonstrable public interest in disclosing the academic records in the cases at hand, stating that the RTI Act was not meant to "provide fodder for sensationalism."

On Section 8(3) and the 20-Year Rule: The court rejected the argument that the 20-year rule under Section 8(3) would automatically mandate disclosure. It held that in the post- K.S. Puttaswamy era, the fundamental Right to Privacy under Article 21 does not diminish with time. Section 8(3) must be read harmoniously with this constitutional guarantee, and personal information remains protected even after two decades unless a compelling public interest is shown.

Ruling on Penalties Imposed by CIC

The court also set aside the penalties of ₹25,000 imposed by the CIC on the CPIOs of Delhi University for returning RTI applications due to defective Indian Postal Orders (IPOs). It noted that the CPIOs were following an established institutional procedure to handle a high volume of applications. The court found no evidence of malafide intent or deliberate obstruction, terming the imposition of the maximum penalty as disproportionate and unjustified.

Final Decision

The High Court allowed the writ petitions filed by the University of Delhi and CBSE, setting aside the impugned orders of the CIC that directed disclosure of student information. The judgment firmly establishes that academic records are personal information protected from third-party disclosure under the RTI Act, thereby reinforcing the constitutional right to privacy in the context of educational data.