New Delhi: As it set aside a 2016 order of the Central Information Commission (CIC) directing Delhi University and Gujarat University to provide details of Prime Minister Narenda Modi’s educational degrees to Arvind Kejriwal Friday, the Gujarat High Court opined that the Delhi chief minister’s motive behind asking for this information was “politically vexatious and motivated”.
Justice Biren Vaishnav also imposed a fine of Rs 25,000 on Kejriwal while ruling that “in absence of any larger public interest, which is neither pleaded nor raised, the educational degrees of Sh Narendra Damodardas Modi are exempted from disclosure under the provisions of section 8(1)(e) and (j) of the RTI Act.”
Section 8(1)(e) of Right to Information Act exempts disclosure of information “available to a person in his fiduciary relationship”, and Section 8(1)(j) exempts “personal information”, unless the authority is satisfied that the disclosure is needed in “larger public interest”.
The court also stated that the Constitution does not provide any educational qualification for leaders to be eligible for elections. It observed that the “line between the well-educated and less educated is rather thin”, and that “much depends on the character of the individual, in the sense of devotion to duty and the concern of the welfare of the people”.
“These characteristics are not the monopoly of the well-educated persons,” it added.
The court was hearing a petition filed by the Gujarat University challenging an order passed by the CIC in April 2016, directing it and the Delhi University to provide the AAP leader information on Modi’s graduate and post-graduate degrees respectively. This was while the CIC was hearing an appeal related to an RTI application for information on Kejriwal’s electoral photo identity card. In response, Kejriwal had written to the CIC, demanding information on Modi’s educational qualifications.
The Commission then considered Kejriwal’s response as an “application under RTI in his capacity as a citizen”, and directed the varsities to provide information sought.
During the high court hearings, the Gujarat University said that “in observance of the highest degree of fairness and transparency”, it had uploaded the degree on its website on 9 May 2016. It had asserted that despite this, the respondents were “arbitrarily seeking to litigate on the issue for extraneous and oblique motives”.
It, however, challenged the order of disclosure of the degree, pointing out that it has conferred lakhs of degrees over the years, and that due to this order, it will be “flooded with applications seeking such third party information”.
The high court judgment now said that during the hearing, “full opportunity” was given to Kejriwal to justify and explain the public purpose that would be served in disclosing Modi’s educational degrees through the RTI route, when the same was available in the public domain. The judgment noted that in response, he justified the demand by saying that all information about the candidate contesting elections must be available in public domain for it to be scrutinised by the public.
However, the court said the motive and purpose behind Kejriwal’s request “appears…to be more politically vexatious and motivated, instead of, being based on sound public interest considerations.”
‘Law not to satisfy curiosity of strangers’
Before the high court, the Gujarat University claimed that the CIC could not have issued such a direction, in view of the exemption under Section 8(1)(e) and 8(1)(j) of the Right to Information Act 2005. It submitted that the RTI Act is intended to ensure transparency, and not to satisfy “curiosity of strangers”. It also asserted that the CIC had issued the order without issuing any notice to the University.
In its judgment, the high court noted that it has been ruled by the Supreme Court that personal professional records, including qualification, performance, evaluation reports or disciplinary proceedings, are all personal information, and that such information is entitled to protection from unwarranted invasion of privacy.
The high court, therefore, asserted that the educational degrees of students are exempted under Sections 8(1)(e) and 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.
Kejriwal’s lawyer had also emphasised on the right to vote of a citizen, asserting that this includes the right to know about the educational qualifications of the candidates. Referring to the Representation of Peoples Act 1951, and the Conduct of Elections (Rules) 1961, he had submitted that since these laws obligate the candidate to disclose his educational qualification, such information would assume the character of public information under the RTI Act.
However, the court rejected this submission, saying the 1961 Rules don’t require a candidate to actually attach the documents with the affidavit.
‘Indiscriminate misuse’ of RTI Act
The high court concluded that while passing the order, the CIC “was well aware that what it was directing was not a specific and certain but a fishing and roving enquiry”. It then observed that “there has been an indiscriminate misuse of the salutary provisions of the RTI Act in the present case”.
It especially took objection to the manner in which the CIC had entertained Kejriwal’s request, when he was neither an applicant, nor a appellant, but a respondent before the CIC. The high court asserted that “such requests cannot be made so casually, making mockery of the very intent and purpose of the RTI Act”.
The court said the CIC had “in a very callous and cavalier manner entertained the oral request” made by Kejriwal.
It opined that Kejriwal had “doubtlessly used an appeal against him to kick start and trigger a controversy not falling within the purview of the RTI Act for the objects and purpose this court need not go into.”
The court then imposed costs on Kejriwal while pointing out that he “persisted with the matter” despite the fact that the degree was put on the university’s website.
(Edited by Smriti Sinha)
Also read: Insult intentional, reduced sentence will send wrong message — Surat court on Rahul’s ‘Modis’ speech