The Delhi High Court has reserved its verdict on a petition filed by the University of Delhi (DU) challenging an order issued by the Central Information Commission (CIC). The CIC had previously directed the university to disclose details regarding Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s Bachelor of Arts (BA) degree.
Justice Sachin Datta reserved the judgment after hearing arguments from both sides. The case, which has drawn significant public attention, revolves around the right to access educational records under the Right to Information (RTI) Act and the limitations of privacy laws.
Read Also:- Calcutta High Court Quashes Case Against YouTuber Accused of Mocking Mamata Banerjee
DU initially filed the plea in 2017, contesting the CIC’s order, which allowed inspection of records of students who had graduated with a BA in 1978—the same year in which PM Modi is reported to have completed his degree. The university had successfully obtained a stay on the order on January 24, 2017.
Delhi University’s Stand:
Solicitor General (SG) of India, Tushar Mehta, representing DU, argued that the CIC’s order should be set aside. He clarified that while the university has no objection to presenting the degree records before the court, it cannot allow public scrutiny of such records by "strangers."
Read Also:- Supreme Court Affirms Right to Interest as Compensation: Doctrine of Restitution Explained
“There is a degree from 1978, Bachelor of Arts, and we have no reservation in showing it to the Court. However, the question remains—can anyone randomly demand access to university records?” Mehta questioned.
Mehta further contended that mere curiosity does not justify a request for personal details under the RTI Act.
“A stranger cannot simply walk into a university and demand degree records of any student among millions,” he argued.
DU also maintained that educational records fall under a “fiduciary relationship” between the university and its students, meaning they cannot be disclosed without proper justification.
RTI Applicant’s Argument:
Senior Advocate Sanjay Hegde, appearing on behalf of RTI activist Neeraj Kumar, argued that universities typically make student results public through notice boards, websites, and even newspapers. He contested DU’s claim that the requested information was confidential.
Read Also:- Allahabad High Court Criticizes UP Government for Not Appointing Teachers, Citing Violation of Article 21-A
“The details sought in this case have traditionally been publicly available. Universities routinely publish student results, making them accessible to all,” Hegde asserted.
Hegde also opposed the Solicitor General’s argument that educational records are held in a fiduciary capacity. He emphasized that such records, especially past academic results, should not be exempt from disclosure under the RTI Act.
Background of the Controversy
RTI activist Neeraj Kumar filed an application seeking details of all students who appeared for the BA examination in 1978. The request included names, roll numbers, marks, and pass/fail status.
However, the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) of Delhi University denied the request, citing privacy concerns and classifying the records as “third-party information.” Neeraj Kumar then approached the CIC, which ruled in his favor in 2016.
Read Also:- Supreme Court Strikes Down Allahabad HC's Mandate for UP Officials to Use Only Government Hospitals
The CIC, in its ruling, stated:
“Education records of students, whether current or former, are matters of public interest. Universities are public institutions, and their records, unless specifically exempted, should be accessible to the public.”
It further observed that all degree-related records are part of the university’s private register, which is a public document.
Despite this, Delhi University opposed the decision, arguing that while it could disclose general statistics (such as the total number of students who appeared and passed), releasing personal details—including names, roll numbers, and marks—would violate privacy norms.
The university insisted that such records contain personal data and are held under a fiduciary duty, making them exempt from RTI disclosure.
