Back
Seeks from Kejriwal in PM Modi Degree RTI Appeal Before HC
The on Wednesday heard arguments in the appeal filed by chief Arvind Kejriwal challenging a ’s order that quashed a directive to disclose Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s educational degrees. During the hearing, , appearing for , urged the of Chief Justice Sunita Agarwal and Justice DN Ray to impose on Kejriwal, arguing that the was being misused and that the CIC had acted without since no had ever been filed.
Background of the Dispute
The case has its origins in a CIC order that directed to provide information regarding the degrees conferred upon Prime Minister Narendra Modi. This order was issued in the course of a before the Commission. Notably, the CIC treated a response made by Kejriwal in a separate proceeding as an RTI application filed in his capacity as a citizen. The University challenged that order before the , and in , a quashed the CIC directive, holding that the information fell within the under Sections 8(1)(e) and 8(1)(j) of the in the absence of any . The also imposed a cost of ₹25,000 on Kejriwal.
Aggrieved, Kejriwal appealed to the , contending that the disclosure of the Prime Minister’s degree was a matter of . However, the University maintained that the information was protected under the exception and that no proper RTI application had ever been made.
The High Court’s
During the proceedings, the Bench made several significant that cast doubt on the validity of the CIC’s action. The court remarked, “What we suppose, that there was absolutely no RTI application at all. No one had come forward to ask for information.” The Solicitor General confirmed the court’s understanding, submitting that the proceedings had originated from a different request for information concerning Kejriwal himself, and that Kejriwal had then responded by seeking information about the Prime Minister’s degree.
The court further noted that the prescribes a specific procedure: “If there is no application there is no question of disclosure, according to our understanding… RTI has a procedure. Someone has to file an application, give correct details of what information he is seeking. Only then the application can be processed. There is a procedure of making application and processing of the same.” The Bench emphasised that the procedure under the Act must be strictly followed, and that the person whose information is sought must have a , which was effectively taken away in this case. “Otherwise the Act will be misused,” the court orally stated.
Solicitor General’s Submissions
advanced several legal arguments in support of the University’s stance. He relied on the ’s judgment in , which cautioned against indiscriminate and impractical demands for information under the . Mehta submitted that such demands could divert public authorities’ resources from productive administrative work. He argued, “The appeal maybe heard and decided on merits. And cost maybe imposed. So that the very noble purpose and intent of the legislature under the is not abused or misused and the authorities do not waste their time on unproductive work.”
Addressing the issue of , the Solicitor General contended that there was no genuine in the disclosure of the Prime Minister’s degree. He explained, “What is here? Suppose for holding a particular post, doctorate in physics is essential eligibility criteria and someone raises an issue that he is holding a public post and not having degree of PhD and therefore I'm seeking information from University, then that would be as his being on the post depends upon that degree. RTI is not an enactment for purpose of curiosity seekers.”
Mehta also referred to the concept of under , arguing that the information held by the University about its students—including the Prime Minister—was in a and thus exempt from disclosure unless a was demonstrated. He noted that the University was contesting the case on principle, as it has issued degrees to lakhs of students and needed a settled legal position on the scope of the .
Legal Implications for RTI Practice
The case raises several critical questions about the functioning of information commissions and the proper invocation of RTI . The court’s strong suggest that the CIC’s order may have been procedurally flawed from the outset, as no RTI application was ever filed by a citizen seeking the Prime Minister’s degree. If the upholds the ’s decision, it would reaffirm that the is not a tool for or . Legal professionals will closely watch whether the court imposes additional on Kejriwal, as sought by the University, to deter .
Furthermore, the case clarifies the scope of the exemption. Universities hold student records in a confidential capacity, and disclosure of such information—especially of constitutional functionaries—requires a clear demonstration of . The ’s caution in Aditya Bandhopadhyay against wasteful RTI requests is likely to be invoked more frequently in future litigation.
Conclusion
The matter has been adjourned to for Kejriwal’s . The outcome of this appeal will have far-reaching consequences for the interpretation of under the and the required of information commissions. For now, the has signalled that the CIC may have exceeded its , and that the must be used responsibly, not as a weapon for political point-scoring. Legal practitioners and RTI activists alike will be watching the final judgment closely.
