The Delhi High Court on Tuesday granted the University of Delhi three weeks to file its objections in a case concerning delayed appeals challenging a 2025 order that refused the disclosure of Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s bachelor’s degree details.
A Division Bench of Chief Justice D K Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia passed the order while hearing an appeal by RTI activist Neeraj, Aam Aadmi Party leader Sanjay Singh, and advocate Mohd Irshad against the single judge’s decision that had quashed a Central Information Commission (CIC) order directing the university to disclose the Prime Minister’s degree records.
Appearing for Delhi University, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta sought time to file a reply on the aspect of delay in filing the appeals as well as on their merits. He argued, “There is nothing in the matter. It is only to sensationalise.”
Granting the request, the court said:
“As prayed, three weeks’ time is granted to file an objection to the application seeking condonation of delay.”
The bench posted the matter for further hearing on April 27.
The appellants’ counsel pointed out that the university had not filed its objections despite the court allowing it to do so over two months ago. He submitted that the delay in filing the appeals was “small,” ranging between 15 to 45 days, and the court could condone it.
When the appellants pressed for formal issuance of notice on the appeals, SG Mehta objected, stating, “Notice can only be issued to sensationalise something.”
The appeals stem from the single judge’s August 25, 2025 decision which had set aside a December 2016 CIC order allowing inspection of the 1978 BA records from Delhi University — the year PM Modi reportedly graduated.
The CIC had directed the university to allow inspection of records of all students who cleared the 1978 BA examination. DU challenged the CIC’s direction, saying it was prepared to show the documents to the court but opposed disclosure to the RTI applicants.
The single judge had allowed the university’s plea, holding that the information sought was “personal” and not of public interest merely because the individual in question held a public office.
The court ruled that educational qualifications were not a statutory requirement for holding public office and added:
“The RTI Act was enacted to promote transparency in government functioning and not to provide fodder for sensationalism.”
It had called the CIC’s approach “thoroughly misconceived.”
The same order had also set aside a similar CIC directive in a related matter involving former Union Minister Smriti Irani, where the CBSE was directed to disclose her Class 10 and 12 records.
With the matter now scheduled for April 27, the high court will decide whether to condone the delay and proceed with the merits of the appeal.
