The Gujarat High Court on Wednesday examined the legal basis of proceedings that had culminated in a Central Information Commission direction concerning disclosure of information relating to Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s educational degree, with the Gujarat University urging the Court to impose costs on Aam Aadmi Party leader Arvind Kejriwal.
A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Sunita Agarwal and Justice D.N. Ray was hearing Kejriwal’s appeal against a 2023 judgment of a Single Bench which had set aside the CIC’s 2016 direction requiring the Gujarat University to furnish information concerning the Prime Minister’s degree.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the University, submitted that the proceedings had not originated from an independent RTI application seeking information regarding the Prime Minister’s educational qualification. He argued that the statutory mechanism contemplated under the Right to Information Act could not be invoked in the absence of a properly instituted application.
According to the University’s submissions, the issue arose after Kejriwal responded to an RTI-related proceeding concerning information pertaining to him and, in that context, sought information regarding the Prime Minister’s degree. The CIC subsequently treated the response as an RTI application and proceeded to direct disclosure.
The Bench questioned the jurisdictional foundation of such an order, observing that if no RTI application had been filed in the first place, the question of directing disclosure would not ordinarily arise. The Court emphasised that the RTI framework prescribes a specific procedure for seeking and processing information.
The Solicitor General contended that the RTI Act constitutes a self-contained statutory regime and that its procedural requirements cannot be bypassed. He further submitted that neither the University nor the person whose information was sought had been appropriately placed within the proceedings before the CIC.
The Court also noted that the statutory framework requires the public authority to examine whether the requested material falls within any of the exemptions under Section 8 of the RTI Act. The person whose information is sought may also have procedural rights in the event that disclosure is proposed.
The University’s challenge is also premised on the exemptions contained in Sections 8(1)(e) and 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, which concern information held in a fiduciary capacity and personal information, respectively. The Single Bench, while quashing the CIC’s order in March 2023, had held that the information concerning the Prime Minister’s degrees was protected under these provisions and that no overriding larger public interest warranting disclosure had been established. It had also imposed costs of ₹25,000 on Kejriwal.
Mehta relied on the Supreme Court’s judgment in CBSE v. Aditya Bandopadhyay, which had cautioned against indiscriminate demands for information under the RTI Act and underscored the need to prevent public authorities’ resources from being diverted towards requests falling outside the statutory purpose of the legislation.
The Solicitor General argued that the University was seeking a determination of the legal principles governing disclosure of degree-related information because it had issued educational credentials to a large number of students and the question could have implications beyond the present dispute.
The Bench is now scheduled to hear Kejriwal’s rejoinder submissions on September 21 at 2:30 pm.
The proceedings arise in Arvind Kejriwal v. Gujarat University & Ors., concerning the scope of the RTI Act, the procedural validity of the CIC’s intervention and the applicability of statutory exemptions to information relating to educational qualifications.
The post PM Modi degree row:Gujarat High Court questions validity of CIC direction,Gujarat University seeks costs against Arvind Kejriwal appeared first on India Legal.