RTI Meant for Transparency, Not 'Fodder for Sensationalism': Delhi HC in PM Degree Row

While setting aside orders of the Central Information Commission (CIC) directing the disclosure of Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s university degree and Union Minister Smriti Irani’s school examination results, the Court pulled up the CIC for overstepping its mandate, cautioning that the transparency law cannot be reduced to a tool for sensationalism.

Justice Sachin Datta, delivering the verdict in University of Delhi v. Neeraj & Anr., ruled that marksheets, results, degree certificates, and other academic records of individuals, even those holding public office, 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 and drawing conclusions therefrom. Whether or not the Delhi University has followed the practice of publishing certain results on its website is not determinative of, and cannot have any bearing on, the interpretation and scope of Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.” the Court observed.

The High Court noted that the CIC’s orders directing disclosure of Modi’s degree from Delhi University and Irani’s Class X and XII results from the Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) were legally unsustainable. Both institutions had challenged the CIC’s directions, arguing that they held academic information in a fiduciary capacity and owed a duty of confidentiality to their students.

Agreeing with this position, Justice Datta said: “These provisions make it evident that the University is obligated to issue results exclusively through official mark sheets and transcripts to the concerned student. The provisions indicate issuing of results to the student/s, not to the public. The framework does not permit the disclosure of marks/grades to any third party. There is an implicit duty of trust and confidentiality in handling students’ academic records.”

The Court also rejected the CIC’s reliance on Section 8(3) of the RTI Act, which allows disclosure of certain information after 20 years. Justice Datta clarified that the passage of time does not erode privacy protections:

“The mere efflux of time does not justify overriding privacy in the absence of compelling necessity linked to a legitimate aim. Section 8(3) does not automatically override the exemption under Section 8(1)(j) when the information sought is inherently personal and protected under the right to privacy.”

Crucially, the Court underlined that disclosure of educational records can only be justified when a qualification is a statutory requirement for holding a particular office. Absent such a condition, the public interest threshold is not met.

The ruling also delivered a strong warning against misuse of RTI requests: “This Court cannot be oblivious to the reality that what may superficially appear to be an innocuous or isolated disclosure could open the floodgates of indiscriminate demands, motivated by idle curiosity or sensationalism, rather than any objective “public interest” consideration. Disregarding the mandate of Section 8(1)(j) in such context would inexorably lead to demands for personal information concerning officials / functionaries spanning the entire gamut of public services, without any real “public interest” being involved. The RTI Act was enacted to promote transparency in government functioning and not to provide fodder for sensationalism."

In the 175 page-Judgment, the Bench also clarified that Section 8(3) of the Right to Information Act does not automatically override the privacy exemption under Section 8(1)(j).