Stories
PM's Degree: Gujarat HC Says Disclosure is Personal, CIC Should Have Left it to Modi
- •The Gujarat High Court ruled that Prime Minister Narendra Modi's academic degree is personal information and its disclosure should have been left to his discretion, not mandated by the Central Information Commissioner (CIC).
- •The court rejected AAP convenor Arvind Kejriwal's appeal against a single bench order that quashed the CIC's 2016 directive to Gujarat University to disclose Modi's degree, imposing a cost of ’25,000 on Kejriwal.
- •The division bench stated that Modi's degree falls under "exempted personal information" as per sections 8(1)(e) and (j) of the RTI Act, 2005, and its disclosure is not necessary for public interest.
- •The HC emphasized that a public servant cannot be compelled to disclose personal information merely by holding office, unless legally obliged under the RTI Act.
- •Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing Gujarat University, argued that the CIC order contravened RTI Act provisions and sought costs against Kejriwal for misusing the Act.
Key Questions Answered
The Gujarat High Court ruled that Prime Minister Narendra Modi's educational degree constitutes personal information protected under sections 8(1)(e) and 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005. The court stated that the Central Information Commission (CIC) should have left its disclosure to the individual's discretion rather than ordering Gujarat University to make it public.
The Gujarat High Court division bench rejected Arvind Kejriwal's appeal because it found no grounds to interfere with a single judge's order that quashed the 2016 CIC directive and upheld a cost of ₹25,000 imposed on the AAP convenor. The court noted that general public curiosity does not automatically qualify as a larger public interest that overrides privacy exemptions under the RTI law.
Kejriwal's counsel argued that no cause of action survived for Gujarat University to challenge the CIC order since the degree had already been declared as uploaded on the university's website in May 2016. Furthermore, the lawyer argued that Kejriwal was not persistent with the matter and contested the imposition of the ₹25,000 cost.
