E-Paper
Hc asks varsity to file response on plea seeking PM’s academic record
Delhi High Court asks Delhi University to respond to appeals filed late against a ruling that protected PM Modi's academic records from disclosure.
New Delhi: The Delhi High Court on Wednesday asked Delhi University to file its written objections to hearing appeals filed after the prescribed period, challenging a single judge’s order that quashed the Central Information Commission (CIC)’s directive to the university to reveal Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s academic records.
A bench comprising Chief Justice DK Upadhyay and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela directed Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the university, to submit the response and listed the matter for further hearing on January 16.
The direction came after the court noted that the four appeals challenging the single judge’s August 25 ruling, were filed beyond the limitation period prescribed under the Delhi High Court Rules. According to the rules, an appeal against a single judge’s order is required to be filed in 30 days.
“Mr Tushar Mehta, Solicitor General appears for the respondents. Objection to the application seeking condonation of delay may be filed within 3 weeks. List on January 16, “ the court said in the order.
The appeals have been filed by advocate RTI activist Neeraj Kumar, Delhi-based lawyer Mohd Irshad, who has appeared for the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) in various cases before the high court and Supreme Court, and parliamentarian Sanjay Singh.
On August 25, a single judge bench of Justice Sachin Datta, set aside CIC’s 2016 order, and said that the university is not obliged to disclose details of Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s academic record, including his undergraduate degree certificate.
The bench in its ruling held that academic records, including Modi’s bachelor’s degree, fall within the realm of “personal information” protected by the fundamental right to privacy, and cannot be disclosed under the Right to Information (RTI) Act unless an overriding public interest is established.
The court said disclosure of such details does not serve public interest, since educational qualifications in these cases are not a statutory requirement for holding public office. In its 175-page ruling, the high court held that disclosing such information would intrude into an individual’s personal sphere, which is constitutionally protected under the Supreme Court’s 2017 judgement on the right to privacy in the case of KS Puttaswamy Vs Union of India.
In their petition, Neeraj, Irshad, and Singh, represented by senior advocate Shadaan Farasat, argued that the single judge’s order suffered from fundamental errors.
The petition filed on Monday asserted that results and degree details served public interest and that universities did not hold such records in a fiduciary capacity (as claimed by the high court order) and that the information sought is not “personal information” since it is about a degree awarded by the university, which is a public authority.
