The Gujarat High Court has reserved its verdict on a review plea filed by Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal concerning the disclosure of Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s academic degree. This development follows the Central Information Commission’s (CIC) directive to Gujarat University to provide details of PM Modi’s academic credentials in response to Kejriwal’s RTI application.
Previously, the High Court, under Justice Biren Vaishnav, had imposed a cost of ₹25,000 on the Delhi CM, accusing him of
“making a mockery of the very intent and purpose of the RTI Act.”
This prompted Kejriwal to approach the court with a review plea.
Senior Advocate Percy Kavina, representing Kejriwal, argued that the court’s observations in the original order were unwarranted. Highlighting the repercussions of the court’s remarks, Kavina stated,
“A word which falls from a superior court…there is a theory, here a butterfly flaps its wings, and there a tsunami occurs…the smallest words uttered most innocuously (court’s judgment) have had a tremendous domino effect which we are facing (referring to the defamation case)…these observations (in the judgment) are unwarranted.”
Kavina further emphasized that the document available on Gujarat University’s website was not PM Modi’s degree but an office record of certain marks from BA (part II) exams. He clarified that the case revolves around the PM’s MA degree, not the BA Degree. Contradicting the university’s claims, he asserted,
“The contention of the GU that the degree in question is already available on the internet was incorrect.”
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for Gujarat University, countered by suggesting that Kejriwal’s review plea was merely
“an attempt to keep the pot boiling and keep the controversy alive for no reason.”
He also proposed that costs should be imposed on the Delhi CM for filing the review petition, as the appropriate course of action would have been to file an appeal instead of a review plea. Mehta argued,
“If there is personal information, I (university) cannot give it unless the authorities record a finding that revealing the said information involves public interest.”
Responding to Mehta’s submissions, Kavina remarked that the Solicitor General’s stance was consistent with an
“attitude to quash every legal form of dissent.”
The case continues to unfold as all parties await the court’s decision on this contentious matter.
