Delhi HC Defers Verdict In DU's plea against CIC Order on Disclosure of PM Modi's Degree

Justice Sachin Datta, who had reserved the order on February 27, was scheduled to deliver the verdict at 2:30 pm today. However, the pronouncement was deferred as the judge was sitting in the UAPA Tribunal and not holding regular court.

The judgment will now be pronounced on Monday, August 25.

On February 11, DU had contended that it held such information in a fiduciary capacity and that mere curiosity, in the absence of public interest, did not warrant seeking personal information under the RTI Act. The university had claimed that the RTI Act had been trivialized by demands for records of all students who graduated in 1978, including the Prime Minister.

The RTI applicant had argued that awarding degrees was a public act and fell under the RTI's purview. He had asserted that DU, as a public authority, could not deny disclosure on the basis of privacy or fiduciary concerns. He had further emphasized that a degree was a qualification granted by the state and did not constitute private information. He had also highlighted that the RTI Act did not consider the applicant’s identity or intent, placing the burden on authorities to justify any exemption.

Senior Advocate Sanjay Hegde, representing another RTI applicant, Neeraj had supported this stance, citing election laws that required candidates to disclose their educational qualifications.

In its plea against the CIC order, DU labeled it "arbitrary" and "untenable in law", asserting that the requested information was third-party personal data. The university had maintained that the CIC's directive lacked legal justification and required DU to allow the inspection of records containing student names, roll numbers, fathers' names, and marks obtained in 1978.

Hegde appeared for the applicant, Neeraj Kumar, and had submitted that the matter requires an early hearing as it has been pending for a long time.

The applicant had filed an RTI application seeking a record of the results of the students of DU who appeared in the BA examination in 1978 and also sought their other details like roll number, name, marks, and result of the exam. The University on the ground that it was the information related to a third party had denied giving details.

Subsequently, Neeraj had challenged the order of the university before the CIC, which had passed an order directing the university to allow the inspection of records. It stated that the information sought by the applicant was available with the university’s private register, which is a public document. DU has challenged the same before the High Court.