The Delhi High Court quashed the CIC’s directive to reveal Smriti Irani’s Class 10 and 12 exam details, calling the approach “thoroughly misconceived.” Justice Sachin Datta held that educational records are personal information under the RTI Act.
New Delhi: On August 25, the Delhi High Court has cancelled an order of the Central Information Commission (CIC) that had asked the Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) to reveal whether Union Minister Smriti Irani passed her Class 10 (1991) and Class 12 (1993) exams.
Justice Sachin Datta of the Delhi High Court ruled that the CIC’s approach was
“thoroughly misconceived.”
The Court explained that academic qualifications such as school records, exam results or degrees cannot automatically be treated as information meant for the public.
Referring to a Supreme Court precedent in CPIO, Supreme Court of India v. Subhash Chandra Agarwal, the judge said that making such information public would go against the settled legal position.
The Court further observed that
“treating exam records, degrees or marks of an individual as ‘public information’ is contrary to the SC ruling in CPIO, SC of India v. Subhash Chandra Agarwal.”
Justice Datta underlined that educational records fall under the category of personal information and are therefore protected from disclosure under the Right to Information (RTI) Act.
ALSO READ: Delhi High Court Defers Verdict on DU’s RTI Case Over PM Modi’s Degree Records
Such records can only be disclosed if there is a strong reason of public interest. The Court clearly said that
“educational records of a person are personal information under the RTI Act, protected from disclosure unless larger public interest is clearly established.”
The Court said that there is no larger public interest in forcing disclosure of such personal information under the Right to Information Act (RTI).
The Court observed:
“There is no implicit public interest in respect of the information sought vide RTI Application … the concerned educational qualifications are not in the nature of any statutory requirement for holding any public office or discharging official responsibilities.”
Justice Sachin Datta further clarified that personal data, even if related to public figures, continues to be protected under the right to privacy unless it is directly connected to their official responsibilities. He stated:
“Just because the information pertains to a public figure, it does not extinguish the privacy and confidentiality rights over personal data that is unconnected with public duties.”
He also referred to the landmark privacy judgment, adding:
“It needs to be emphasized that disclosure of academic details sans any overriding public interest, would amount to an intrusion into the personal sphere which is constitutionally protected post KS Puttaswamy (supra).”
The Court expressed concern that entertaining such RTI requests could create a dangerous precedent, encouraging indiscriminate demands for private data of public officials. It said:
“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.”
The matter goes back to 2015, when one Mohd. Naushadudin had filed an RTI application before the CBSE asking whether Smriti Irani had passed her Class 10 exam in 1991 and Class 12 exam in 1993. He had also requested copies of her admit cards and mark sheets.
The CBSE’s Public Information Officer (PIO) rejected the application, and the first appellate authority also upheld the rejection. Naushadudin then approached the CIC in second appeal.
On January 17, 2017, the CIC directed CBSE to allow inspection of the records and provide certified copies of the selected documents free of cost, except personal details on admit cards and mark sheets. CBSE challenged this order before the Delhi High Court.
On Monday, Justice Datta ruled in CBSE’s favour and set aside the CIC’s order.
The Court said:
“In the circumstances, the impugned orders which are the subject matter of W.P.(C) 600/2017 and W.P.(C) 1051/2017 (matter concerning Smriti Irani’s CBSE records), being inconsistent with and de-hors the provisions of RTI Act, cannot be sustained and are accordingly set aside.”
By the same judgment, the Delhi High Court also overturned the CIC’s direction to disclose the degree records of Prime Minister Narendra Modi.
Read Live Coverage:
Case Title:
CBSE v. Mohd Naushadudin and connected matters
Read Order:
Click Here to Read More Reports On PM degree
