The Delhi High Court ruled that PM Narendra Modi and Smriti Irani’s academic records are personal information protected under the RTI Act. Justice Sachin Datta said disclosure cannot be driven by “idle curiosity or sensationalism.”
New Delhi: On August 25, the Delhi High Court gave an important ruling saying that there is no automatic public interest in making the educational records of Prime Minister Narendra Modi and former Union Minister Smriti Irani public. The case was titled University of Delhi v Neeraj & Anr.
Justice Sachin Datta made it clear that information like marksheets, results, degree certificates, and other academic records of any person are personal in nature. Even if the person holds a public office, such details are protected under the Right to Information (RTI) Act.
The Court observed,
“…it would be a different matter where a particular educational qualification is a criteria or prerequisite for holding a public office or any post.”
It further warned that making such details public without a genuine reason can open doors for endless requests, not because of real need but out of curiosity or to create sensation.
The Court said,
“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.”
This decision came while the Court was hearing petitions filed by Delhi University and the Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE).
Both institutions had challenged the Central Information Commission (CIC) orders which had earlier directed them to provide details about PM Modi’s degree and about whether Smriti Irani cleared her 10th and 12th standard exams in 1991 and 1993.
After looking at the facts, the High Court set aside the CIC orders. It noted that universities and boards keep students’ academic records in a fiduciary capacity, which means they hold them in trust and are duty-bound to protect their confidentiality.
The Court highlighted,
“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 dismissed the argument that since these records are more than 20 years old, they must be disclosed as per Section 8(3) of the RTI Act.
ALSO READ: Delhi High Court Defers Verdict on DU’s RTI Case Over PM Modi’s Degree Records
Justice Datta said that with the Supreme Court recognising the right to privacy as a fundamental right, this protection does not vanish simply with the passage of time.
He said,
“The mere efflux of time does not justify overriding privacy in the absence of compelling necessity linked to a legitimate aim.”
The Court added,
“Thus 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. The statutory provision must be interpreted in harmony with constitutional guarantees, and no disclosure can be directed unless a demonstrable and compelling public interest clearly outweighs the privacy right in question.”
Criticising the CIC’s earlier approach, the Court remarked,
“…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.”
With this ruling, the Delhi High Court has reinforced that the RTI Act is meant to promote transparency in government functioning but not at the cost of an individual’s privacy.
Unless a public office requires a mandatory qualification, no citizen — not even the Prime Minister or a Union Minister — can be forced to disclose their personal academic records under RTI.
Background of PM Modi’s Degree Controversy
The educational qualifications of Prime Minister Narendra Modi have been a subject of political debate for several years. The controversy began when RTI applications were filed before Delhi University and Gujarat University seeking details of Modi’s undergraduate and postgraduate degrees.
The Central Information Commission (CIC) had earlier directed universities to provide this information, but the issue became highly politicised, with questions raised by opposition parties and activists about the authenticity of the degrees.
The Gujarat High Court in 2016 had already dismissed a similar RTI request, holding that academic records are personal information. Despite these rulings, the controversy resurfaced, leading to fresh CIC orders and ultimately to the present case before the Delhi High Court.
Background of Smriti Irani’s Educational Qualification Dispute
Former Union Minister Smriti Irani has also faced public scrutiny over her academic qualifications. Questions were raised after she submitted different details about her educational background in election affidavits filed before the Election Commission in different years.
In one affidavit she claimed to have completed a degree from Delhi University, while in another she only mentioned completing part of the course.
This inconsistency gave rise to political debates and RTI applications filed before CBSE, seeking to verify whether she had cleared her 10th and 12th standard examinations in 1991 and 1993.
The CIC then ordered CBSE to disclose the information, which eventually became part of the petitions heard by the Delhi High Court.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) on Delhi HC Verdict on PM Modi & Smriti Irani’s Degrees
1. Can you get a politician’s degree under RTI?
No. The Delhi High Court has clarified that academic records like marksheets, degree certificates, and results are personal information protected under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. They cannot be disclosed unless there is a compelling public interest that outweighs privacy.
2. Does the RTI Act allow disclosure of records that are more than 20 years old?
Section 8(3) of the RTI Act allows some old records to be disclosed, but the Court held that this does not automatically apply to personal information like educational qualifications. Justice Datta observed: “The mere efflux of time does not justify overriding privacy in the absence of compelling necessity linked to a legitimate aim.”
3. Why did Delhi University refuse to disclose PM Modi’s degree?
DU argued that it maintains students’ academic records in a fiduciary relationship (a position of trust) and cannot release them to third parties. The Court agreed, noting: “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.”
4. What did the Court say about Smriti Irani’s 10th and 12th records?
The Court set aside the CIC order that had directed CBSE to disclose whether Smriti Irani passed her 10th and 12th exams. It ruled that this too was personal information and exempt from disclosure under Section 8(1)(j).
5. Can educational qualifications be disclosed if they are a requirement for the post?
Yes. The Court clarified: “…it would be a different matter where a particular educational qualification is a criteria or prerequisite for holding a public office or any post.” For example, if a job requires a law degree, then verifying that qualification may be in public interest.
6. How does the Right to Privacy affect RTI?
The Supreme Court in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017) recognised privacy as a fundamental right. The Delhi HC applied this principle, holding that personal information does not lose protection just because time has passed.
7. Does curiosity count as public interest under RTI?
No. The Court said RTI cannot be used for “idle curiosity or sensationalism.” Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for DU, also argued that “mere curiosity” is not a valid ground for disclosure.
Case Title:
University of Delhi v Neeraj & Anr
Read Order:
Click Here to Read More Reports On PM degree
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
