The Delhi High Court on Wednesday turned its attention once again to the politically charged issue of Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s educational records. In a brief but lively hearing, the bench headed by Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela directed the Delhi University to file its objections on the delay in filing several appeals that seek to make public details of the Prime Minister’s Bachelor of Arts (BA) degree.
The court made it clear that before going into the merits of the case, it wants to understand why the appeals were filed late.
“Objections to the condonation of delay may be filed within three weeks,” the bench ordered, fixing January 16 as the next date of hearing.
Background
The legal battle goes back almost a decade. It began when RTI activist Neeraj Sharma filed a query seeking details of all students who cleared the BA Political Science course from Delhi University in 1978 the same year Mr. Modi claims to have graduated. The University refused, calling it “third party information” that cannot be disclosed.
Unsatisfied, Sharma approached the Central Information Commission (CIC), which in December 2016 ruled in his favour, directing DU to make the relevant register public. But the University moved the Delhi High Court the following month, and the order was stayed.
In August this year, a single-judge bench led by Justice Sachin Datta set aside the CIC directive entirely, holding that educational records of an individual - even a public figure - are personal information exempt under the RTI Act. That decision prompted the current batch of appeals from Sharma, AAP leader Sanjay Singh, and advocate Mohd Irshad.
The hearing on Wednesday saw measured but pointed exchanges. Appearing for Delhi University, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta said, “I was not aware there was delay. I have no hesitation in arguing the main matter also.”
Chief Justice Upadhyaya responded that the court must first address the procedural delay before delving into substantive arguments. “We’ll deal with the merits later,” the bench remarked.
Senior Advocate Shadan Farasat, representing one of the appellants, briefly stated that the single-judge ruling suffered from “two fundamental errors,” though he refrained from elaborating further in this preliminary hearing.
Court's Direction
In the end, the bench ordered the Delhi University to file its objections within three weeks. The appellants will then have two weeks to respond. The matter is slated to be heard again on January 16, 2026.
For now, the debate over whether details of a Prime Minister’s degree qualify as “public information” under the RTI Act remains in suspense. Outside court, one advocate quipped,
“This case has less to do with a degree and more to do with degrees of transparency.”
Case Title:- Mohd Irshad v. DU & other connected matters
