The Delhi High Court Today (Feb 11) questioned RTI activist Neeraj Sharma on whether there was any “public interest” in seeking details of students who cleared Delhi University’s BA course in 1978, the year PM Modi claims to have graduated. DU opposed the disclosure, arguing that student records are held in a fiduciary capacity and cannot be revealed under the RTI Act. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta also pointed out non-payment of RTI fees. The next hearing is scheduled for February 19.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: The Delhi High Court on Tuesday asked RTI activist Neeraj Sharma if there was any “public interest” in his request under the RTI Act to get details of students who cleared the BA course from Delhi University (DU) in 1978.
This is the same year when Prime Minister Narendra Modi is said to have completed his BA in Political Science from DU.
Justice Sachin Datta raised this question because DU had challenged a 2017 order by the Central Information Commission (CIC). The CIC had directed DU to provide the information Sharma requested.
If the CIC order was followed, it would mean that PM Modi’s degree records could be inspected. This is a controversial issue as Modi’s political opponents have often claimed that his educational qualifications are fake.
“Is there any public interest in seeking the details,”
-the Court asked Sharma’s lawyer.
Solicitor General (SG) Tushar Mehta, representing DU, told the court that the university holds students’ degree details in a “fiduciary capacity.” Therefore, he argued, such details cannot be shared under the RTI Act.
Mehta also questioned the credibility of the RTI applicants whose request led to the 2017 CIC order. He further stated that they had not even paid the required fees under the RTI Act.
After hearing both sides, the Court scheduled the next hearing for February 19.
During the proceedings, the Court also questioned Sharma regarding the non-payment of fees and DU’s argument about fiduciary responsibility.
“If you succeed on ‘fiduciary capacity’ point, you are through,”
-Justice Sachin Datta told Sharma.
ALSO READ: Delhi High Court Scrutinizes ‘PM Modi Selfie Points’
BACKGROUND
The controversy began in 2016 when Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal asked PM Modi to “come clean about his educational degrees” and “make them public”.
Following this, Neeraj Sharma, a supporter of the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP), filed an RTI with DU, requesting details of PM Modi’s degree.
PM Modi had stated in his election affidavit that he completed his B.A. in Political Science from DU in 1978. However, DU refused to share the information, calling it “private” and saying it “had nothing to do with public interest”.
In December 2016, Sharma challenged DU’s response before the CIC. Information Commissioner Prof. Madhubhushanam Acharyulu then directed DU to make public the register containing the list of students who passed the BA course in 1978.
On January 23, 2017, DU approached the Delhi High Court to challenge the CIC’s order.
In January 2017, the Court issued a notice to Neeraj Sharma and stayed the CIC order. SG Tushar Mehta had argued that disclosing such details could have serious negative consequences for DU and other universities in India, as they hold the academic records of millions of students in a fiduciary capacity.
ALSO READ: Budget 2025 | “Fulfils Dreams of Every Indian, Will Increase Savings”: PM Modi
HEARING TODAY
During the latest hearing, SG Mehta questioned the petitioner’s credibility.
“Filing RTI is a profession these days. Now RTI activist is a designation in itself, it is a profession. How doctors and CAs have visiting cards. It is misused, abused as observed previously by court,”
-he said.
He also emphasized that DU has a fiduciary duty to protect students’ personal information.
Further, he pointed out that out of four RTI applications, three were rejected because the applicants did not pay the required fees under the RTI Act.
“So the application was not even processed. So you did not pay the fees, that is why it was rejected,”
-the Court asked Sharma’s lawyer.
“His defect was curable in nature, it did not have to get dismissed,”
-Senior Advocate Sanjay Hegde, appearing for Sharma, responded.
“You should have filed a fresh application with ₹10. Every Public Officer gets hundreds and thousands of applications,”
-the SG remarked.
Hegde also argued against DU’s claim that degree records are held in a fiduciary capacity.
“If I were to tell the universe I need help of a scribe, I need to get my way around but I am visually challenged, this is fiduciary. Marks are not external information. If I go to the driving test, the pass or fail information is external. That fiduciary relation does not come with the evaluated paper with university,”
-Hegde explained.
He added that the information officer must decide whether disclosure would benefit the public or cause harm.
“Degree-related information is in public domain. Access to information has to be provided for ordinary man or celebrity,”
he said.
The case will continue on February 19.
Click Here to Read Previous Reports on CJI Sanjeev Khanna
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
