In a significant hearing regarding the disclosure of Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s educational records, the Delhi High Court was informed on Wednesday that awarding a degree constitutes a public act covered under the Right to Information (RTI) Act. Senior advocate Shadan Farasat, representing RTI applicant Irshad, argued that Delhi University (DU) is a public authority under the RTI Act, and thus, must disclose information about degrees awarded.
The case dates back to a Central Information Commission (CIC) order from December 21, 2016, which permitted the inspection of records for all students who graduated with a BA in 1978, the year PM Modi is also claimed to have completed his degree. However, the Delhi High Court stayed this order on January 23, 2017.
Farasat contended in court that a degree is “a privilege and not a right” and is granted by the state to signify that an individual has met certain academic standards. “The grant of a degree is a public act. It is to represent to the public that he is qualified. There is nothing private about it,” Farasat stated, emphasizing the role of degrees as public records.
The advocate also dismissed the notion of a fiduciary relationship between DU and its students regarding the disclosure of degrees, asserting, “Degree is given by DU. It is not my degree given to DU.”
The RTI Act’s non-requirement for applicants to state reasons for seeking information — being “applicant agnostic” and “reason agnostic” — was a focal point of Farasat’s arguments. He stressed that the law does not necessitate justifying the need for the requested information, thereby simplifying the process of public access to records.
Senior advocate Sanjay Hegde, representing another RTI applicant Neeraj, aligned with this argument, noting the electoral law’s mandate for candidates to disclose their educational qualifications as the public has the right to know these details.
On the opposing side, DU has challenged the CIC’s decision as “arbitrary” and “untenable in law,” describing the requested information as “third party personal information.” Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing DU, argued on February 11 that the university holds this information in a fiduciary capacity and that mere curiosity does not justify breaching privacy under the RTI Act.
Despite these claims, the CIC previously rejected DU’s argument about third-party personal information, instructing the university to facilitate the inspection of the 1978 BA exam records and provide certified copies of these records free of charge.
