Gujarat HC reserves verdict in plea against CIC order on disclosure of PM Modi’s degree under RTI
Under the provisions of the RTI Act, the information sought must be related to public activity, SG Mehta argued while opposing the 2016 order of CIC directing the Gujarat University to furnish information on PM Modi’s MA degree to Delhi CM Arvind Kejriwal.
The Gujarat High Court on Thursday reserved orders in the petition moved by the Gujarat University (GU) against the order of the Central Information Commission (CIC) directing the University to provide information on Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s degree under the RTI Act to Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal.
In 2016, the CIC had directed the University to search for information regarding the degree of PM Modi and furnish the same to Delhi Chief Minister Kejriwal. Kejriwal had written a letter to CIC to make public details of PM Modi's educational qualifications.
Today Solicitor General of India appeared before the high court for the University, and argued that as per Section 8(e) of the Right to Information Act there shall be no obligation to give any citizen information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information.
Mehta emphasized that someone's curiosity cannot be equated with public interest.
"If a person wants his/her own degree from the University, he/she can demand the same, but a third person can't demand it...You (Arvind Kejriwal) are a stranger (to the matter)...This is too childish", he argued.
He further contended that the degree was already in public domain. There is nothing to hide but in principle, the question is can RTI Act be applied for extraneous purposes to satisfy someone's curiosity, it needs to be examined, Mehra stressed.
He prayed the single judge bench of Justice Biren Vaishnav to allow the university’s plea with cost. Otherwise, we will be doing a great disservice to the (RTI) Act which is intended for something else, and it is being used for something else, Mehta asserted.
Arguing on behalf of Kejriwal, senior advocate Percy Kavina questioned the locus of the University to challenge the CIC order. He argued that the University is not an affected party in the present matter and that the PIO (public information officer) of PMO (Prime Minister’s Office) had not chosen to challenge this order.