PM Degree Row 2025: DU Defends RTI Objection in Delhi HC

0
PM degree row
PM degree row: University of Delhi defends refusal to disclose Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s degree details. Cited privacy and fiduciary obligations under the RTI Act. Learn about the legal arguments, CIC’s directive, and the ongoing case in the Delhi High Court.

The University of Delhi (DU) has defended its objection to disclosing information about PM Narendra Modi’s degree under the Right to Information (RTI) Act. The matter was presented before Justice Sachin Datta in the Delhi High Court on Monday.

DU argued that the RTI Act is not meant to satisfy personal curiosity, especially when it involves third-party information. The university challenged a 2016 order by the Central Information Commission (CIC. It allows inspection of the records of students who passed the Bachelor of Arts (BA) examination in 1978, the year PM Modi graduated.

Fiduciary Relationship Cited PM degree row

DU’s solicitor general, Tushar Mehta, emphasized that universities hold student records in a fiduciary capacity. According to Section 8 of the RTI Act, such information is exempt from disclosure to third parties. It is until and unless there is overwhelming public interest. Mehta argued that allowing access to such records could set a dangerous precedent.

The solicitor general also stressed that the RTI Act cannot be misused to request irrelevant details. This does not contribute to transparency or accountability in public administration.

Background of the Case PM degree row

The case arose after activist Neeraj filed an RTI plea in 2016, seeking access to the details of all students who passed the BA exam in 1978. This included the roll numbers, names, father’s names, and marks obtained by the students.

On December 21, 2016, the CIC directed DU to allow the inspection of these records. They have requested to provide certified copies of relevant documents. However, the Delhi High Court stayed this order on January 23, 2017. DU later filed a petition challenging the CIC’s directive.

DU’s Arguments PM degree row

DU’s petition stated that the CIC’s order was arbitrary, illegal, and contrary to the law. The university argued that:

  • The information sought was third-party personal data.
  • Releasing such data could violate the privacy of individuals.
  • There was no pressing public interest to justify the disclosure.
  • The request would have far-reaching consequences for universities. They hold the sensitive data of millions of students.

The petition added that the RTI Act was being misused for indiscriminate and impractical demands.

Solicitor General’s Position PM degree row

Mehta noted that an individual can request their degree or mark sheet under the RTI Act, provided it complies with the rules. However, third-party requests for personal data, like the activist’s plea, do not meet the Act’s purpose. He cautioned that such demands could disrupt administrative efficiency.

The solicitor general also pointed out that granting such requests could lead to a flood of similar petitions. For example, others might demand records of students from different years. This will strain university resources.

CIC’s Order Explained PM degree row

The CIC’s 2016 order had directed DU to allow inspection of the BA examination register from 1978. It dismissed DU’s claim that the information was third-party data, stating that there was no legal basis for withholding it. The commission ordered DU to provide the information free of cost.

Implications of Disclosure PM degree row

DU’s counsel argued that sharing such data would create administrative challenges. The university holds decades of sensitive student records, and disclosing them without proper justification could harm the system. It also warned that similar RTI applications could burden educational institutions across India.

Key Points in the Case

  • CIC’s 2016 order: Directed DU to allow inspection of 1978 BA exam records.
  • DU’s objection: Cited fiduciary relationship and privacy concerns.
  • Solicitor general’s stance: Emphasized that the RTI Act is not for personal curiosity.
  • Delhi HC stay: CIC’s order stayed in January 2017.
  • Hearing pending: The case will be heard later in January.

Conclusion

The ongoing PM degree row raises important questions about the balance between transparency and privacy under the RTI Act. DU has strongly defended its position, arguing that disclosing student records could set a problematic precedent. The Delhi High Court’s decision in this case will likely have significant implications for universities and RTI jurisprudence in India.

FOR MORE SUCH INTERESTING UPDATES, FOLLOW US ON INSTAGRAM 

ALSO READIPU Dual Degree Programme Announced in 2025: Dual MSc with University of Krakow, Poland

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here