Back
Dismisses Kejriwal's Appeal, Upholds ₹25K Cost in PM Modi Degree Row
In a significant ruling that reinforces the boundaries of the Right to Information (RTI) regime, the on Tuesday dismissed an appeal filed by (AAP) convenor Arvind Kejriwal challenging the imposition of ₹25,000 in costs. The Division Bench of Chief Justice Sunita Agarwal and Justice D.N. Ray found no error in the single judge’s judgment, which had quashed a (CIC) direction to to disclose Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s academic degrees.
The order, pronounced , stated: “In the totality of facts and circumstances of the present case, no error on any of the submissions of the appellant herein can be found in the . The appeal stands dismissed accordingly with .” The bench also dismissed the accompanying .
The Long-Running Degree Controversy
The dispute dates back to when Kejriwal wrote to the CIC, questioning why information about PM Modi’s educational qualifications was not being disclosed while his own records were being made public. Treating the letter as an RTI application, the then CIC, M. Sridhar Acharyulu, directed and to provide details of the degrees conferred upon Modi.
immediately challenged the CIC’s directive before the High Court, arguing that the RTI mechanism was being misused to satisfy “irresponsible childish curiosity” rather than serve any genuine public interest. In , the university’s Vice-Chancellor, M.N. Patel, voluntarily disclosed that Modi had completed his MA in Political Science in as an external student, and even posted the degree on the university website.
Despite this, Kejriwal continued to pursue the matter, leading the single judge, Justice Biren Vaishnav, to quash the CIC order on . The single judge held that the information was exempt from disclosure under Sections 8(1)(e) and 8(1)(j) of the , as it pertained to personal information of a third party and was held in a by the university. Crucially, the judge imposed a cost of ₹25,000 on Kejriwal, observing that he had “persisted” with the proceedings even after the degree was made available online, amounting to an .
Kejriwal’s Challenge to the Cost
Kejriwal’s appeal before the Division Bench primarily focused on the imposition of costs. His counsel, senior advocate , argued that the single judge had proceeded on a mistaken premise. “My learned friend from the other side had started by saying that they have already put the degree on the website. If they have already put the degree on the website then where is the in the ?” Singhvi submitted, emphasizing that Kejriwal had not filed the original RTI application and was only made a respondent by the CIC.
Singhvi further contended that the university had only placed on record an “office register” reflecting conferment of the degree, not the degree itself. He argued that the distinction between a record of a degree and the actual degree was material, and that Kejriwal had not “persisted” in any manner—rather, he was merely defending his position as a respondent.
The university, represented by Solicitor General , strongly opposed the appeal. Mehta argued that Kejriwal had relentlessly pursued the litigation, holding press conferences to defame the institution, and that the could not be invoked merely to satisfy curiosity. He urged the court to impose further costs to deter misuse of the RTI framework.
The Division Bench Verdict
After hearing both sides and reserving judgment earlier this month, the Division Bench delivered a concise oral order dismissing the appeal. The bench found no merit in any of Kejriwal’s submissions, effectively affirming the single judge’s findings on both the exemption from disclosure and the justification for costs.
The single judge had earlier noted that the university’s office register was a contemporaneous record sufficient to establish the conferment of the degree. The court had criticized the CIC for venturing into “” by expanding the proceedings beyond the statutory framework. On costs, the single judge observed that Kejriwal’s continued pursuit of the matter, despite the degree being in the public domain, constituted an .
Legal Analysis: RTI Exemptions and
The case underscores the delicate balance between the right to information and the protection of personal privacy under the . Sections 8(1)(e) and 8(1)(j) exempt information held in a and personal information that has no relationship to any public activity or interest. The courts have consistently held that the mere status of a public figure does not automatically strip them of privacy rights, especially when the information sought is not germane to any larger public interest.
The imposition of costs in this case serves as a strong judicial signal against or vindictive use of the RTI mechanism. The single judge’s observation that Kejriwal’s approach was “casual” and that the proceedings were diverted towards “politicising the matter” reflects a growing judicial intolerance for the weaponization of transparency laws for collateral purposes.
From a procedural standpoint, the Division Bench’s —without even calling for a detailed judgment—indicates that the appellate court saw no arguable error in the single judge’s reasoning. This may discourage similar appeals in matters where the clearly shows that the information has been voluntarily disclosed and the applicant’s persistence is unreasonable.
Impact on Legal Practice and RTI Jurisprudence
For legal practitioners, this ruling reinforces the importance of establishing a clear public interest when seeking information under the . The courts are now more willing to scrutinize the motives behind RTI applications, especially when they target high-profile individuals. The decision also clarifies that a university’s internal records, such as office registers, can be sufficient proof of a degree’s conferment, reducing the scope for endless litigation over the authenticity of documents.
Moreover, the —upheld by the Division Bench—serves as a deterrent against the misuse of the RTI machinery by political figures. It sends a message that the courts will not hesitate to impose financial penalties on those who persist with requests after the information has been made public, thereby wasting judicial and administrative resources.
The case also highlights the role of the CIC in adhering to its statutory limits. The single judge had pulled up the CIC for treating a letter as an RTI application and for expanding the scope of proceedings. The Division Bench’s affirmation of that criticism may lead to more cautious decision-making by information commissions.
Conclusion
The ’s dismissal of Arvind Kejriwal’s appeal brings a definitive close to a controversy that has simmered for nearly a decade. By upholding the ₹25,000 cost and the quashing of the CIC’s directive, the court has reinforced the principle that the and must be exercised responsibly. As the detailed order is awaited, the legal community will watch closely for further reasoning on the interplay between privacy, public interest, and the limits of RTI litigation. For now, the message is clear: persistent pursuit of information already in the public domain, without a demonstrable larger public interest, may come at a personal cost.
