Delhi High Court questions motive behind appeals on PM Modi degree disclosure

The Delhi High Court on Tuesday, pulled up petitioners challenging the non-disclosure of Prime Minister Narendra Modi's bachelor's degree, as Delhi University asserted that the appeals were filed merely to sensationalise the issue and lacked any legal merit.

Appearing for DU, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta submitted before a bench of Chief Justice D K Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia that there was nothing in the matter and that issuance of notice would only serve to sensationalise an already settled issue.

"I am appearing. Notice can be only issued to sensationalize something. There is nothing in the matter. This is only to sensationalise," Mehta told the court.

The submissions were made in appeals filed by advocate and RTI activist Neeraj Kumar, Delhi based lawyer Mohd Irshad, and AAP Rajya Sabha MP Sanjay Singh. The appeals challenge a single judge order dated August 25, 2025, which had set aside a 2016 direction of the Central Information Commission requiring DU to disclose details of Prime Minister Modi's academic records.

During Tuesday's hearing, Mehta sought time to file written objections, both on the issue of delay in filing the appeals and on the merits of the case. On November 12, the High Court had flagged that there was a delay in filing the appeals and asked the DU to file its objections on that aspect.

Under the Delhi High Court Rules, an appeal against a single judge's order must be filed within 30 days. The present appeals were filed on November 10, beyond the prescribed limitation period.

Counsel for the appellants, Senior Advocate Shadan Farasat, pressed for issuance of notice, arguing that DU had already agreed to file a response on merits. He pointed out that despite seeking time, the university had not filed its objections on delay for over two and a half months. Farasat contended that the delay of about 40 to 45 days was minor and deserved to be condoned.

Mehta, however, opposed the plea, submitting that condonation of delay was not automatic and required careful consideration by the court.

After hearing both sides, the bench granted DU three weeks' time to file its written objections on the issue of delay and listed the matter for further hearing on April 27.

In its August 2025 ruling, the single bench had held that DU was not obligated to disclose the Prime Minister's undergraduate degree certificate or related academic records under the Right to Information Act. The court ruled that such records constitute personal information protected by the fundamental right to privacy and cannot be disclosed unless an overriding public interest is clearly established.

In their appeals, the petitioners have argued that the single judge's order suffers from fundamental legal errors. They contend that degree and result details serve a public interest, that universities do not hold such information in a fiduciary capacity, and that academic records of a degree awarded by a public authority cannot be treated as personal information exempt from disclosure under the RTI Act.

Delivering a stern reminder on the spirit of the law, the single judge had cautioned against its misuse for personal vendettas or publicity driven motives. It held that marksheets, results, degree certificates, and other academic records, even of public officials, constitute personal information protected under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.

"The CIC misdirected itself in relying upon anecdotal material and subjective assessments. Whether or not Delhi University has previously published certain results online cannot determine the interpretation of Section 8(1)(j)," the court observed.

The single judge found that the CIC's directions to disclose PM Modi's degree from Delhi University and Smriti Irani's Class X and XII records from the CBSE were legally unsustainable.

Both institutions had argued that they hold academic records in a fiduciary capacity and owe a duty of confidentiality to their students, a position the court accepted. The University is obligated to issue results exclusively through official mark sheets and transcripts to the concerned student. The framework does not permit disclosure of marks or grades to any third party. There is an implicit duty of trust and confidentiality in handling students' academic records.

RTI applicant Neeraj Kumar had sought records of students who appeared for Delhi University's BA examination in 1978, including names, roll numbers, and marks. The university refused, citing third party privacy. Neeraj challenged this before the CIC, which directed Delhi University to allow inspection of records, observing that the information was part of the university's register, a public document.

The university then appealed before the High Court. Allowing DU's appeal, the single judge emphasized that disclosure of educational records is justified only when a qualification is a statutory requirement for holding a particular office. Otherwise, the public interest threshold under the RTI Act is not met.

The single judge also warned against misuse of RTI requests. What may superficially appear to be an innocuous disclosure could open the floodgates of indiscriminate demands, motivated by curiosity or sensationalism rather than genuine public interest.

In its 175 page judgment, the single judge had clarified that Section 8(3) of the RTI Act does not override the privacy exemption under Section 8(1)(j). Information of a personal nature remains protected unless a demonstrable and compelling public interest outweighs the right to privacy.

The matter will now be heard on April 27 after Delhi University files its objections on both delay and merits.

Case details: Mohd Irshad vs DU & other connected matters, before a bench of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tejash Karia, hearing date February 10, 2026.