Delhi High Court: Personal Data in Smriti Irani Degree Row Protected Under RTI Unless Compelling Need Arises

The Court held that information of a personal nature remains protected unless a “demonstrable and compelling public interest clearly outweighs the privacy right in question,” stressing that statutory provisions must be interpreted in harmony with constitutional guarantees.

The Bench of Justice Sachin Datta made the above observation while quashing orders of the Central Information Commission (CIC) that had directed disclosure of the academic records of former Union Minister Smriti Irani and Prime Minister Narendra Modi.

The Single Judge Bench underscored that the right to information under Section 3 of the RTI Act is not absolute but subject to the exemptions set out under Section 8(1). “The mere act of publishing certain information on some occasions does not dilute the legal protection accorded to personal information under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act,” the Court observed.

The controversy arose from an RTI application filed by one Mohd. Naushadudin, who had sought details of Smriti Irani’s Class X and XII academic records from the Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE). The Public Information Officer (PIO) and the First Appellate Authority denied the request. However, on January 17, 2017, the CIC directed the CBSE to facilitate inspection of the relevant records and provide certified copies of documents sought by the applicant.

The High Court found the CIC’s directive unsustainable, observing that there was “no public interest implicit in the disclosure of the information sought.”

Justice Datta clarified that a public functionary’s educational qualifications, unless they form a statutory requirement for holding public office or discharging official responsibilities, do not fall within the realm of public interest. “The concerned educational qualifications are not in the nature of any statutory requirement for holding any public office or discharging official responsibilities,” the Court said.

The Court also invoked the Supreme Court’s landmark judgment in KS Puttuswamy v. Union of India, which recognised the right to privacy as a fundamental right. Justice Datta emphasised that academic details, in the absence of overriding public interest, constitute part of an individual’s personal sphere protected under the Constitution. Disclosure of such information without adequate justification would amount to an impermissible intrusion, the Court held.

In sharp criticism of the CIC’s approach, the High Court noted that the Commission had gone to the extent of directing a private school to trace the roll number of the concerned public figure and share it with the CBSE. Such directions, the Court said, were “completely de hors the provisions of the RTI Act.”

The Court’s ruling also extended to a connected matter concerning Delhi University’s plea against a CIC order directing disclosure of records related to Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s bachelor’s degree. By setting aside the impugned order, the Court affirmed the same principle; that unless there is an overriding element of public interest, educational qualifications of public figures remain protected from disclosure under Section 8(1)(j).