The Gujarat high court on Friday set aside a 2016 order of the central information commissioner (CIC) for providing information about Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s degrees to Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leader and Delhi chief minister Arvind Kejriwal under the Right to Information (RTI) Act.
Justice Biren Vaishnav allowed the Gujarat University’s appeal against the CIC’s order and also imposed a cost of ₹25,000 on Kejriwal.
In April 2016, the then CIC M Sridhar Acharyulu directed the Delhi University and the Gujarat University to provide information to Kejriwal. The court later that year stayed the order after Gujarat University approached it.
The court’s verdict on Friday came a day after the AAP intensified its poster war targeting Modi. Posters asking whether the country needed an educated Prime Minister were put up in parts of Delhi on Thursday. AAP last week launched the “Modi Hatao, Desh Bachao (remove Modi, save nation)” campaign.
The AAP said similar posters in 11 languages were being put up in 22 states and that it would also display them at universities across India from April 10.
The Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) responded to the poster campaign with one of its own “Kejriwal Hatao, Delhi Bachao (remove Kejriwal, save Delhi)”.
Eight people were on Friday arrested in connection with “Modi Hatao, Desh Bachao” posters in Ahmedabad days after the Delhi Police filed 185 cases and apprehended six people while they were delivering similar material last week to AAP’s offices.
The tensions between AAP and BJP intensified in February following former Delhi deputy chief minister Manish Sisodia’s arrest in connection with the alleged irregularities in the now-scrapped 2021-22 exercise policy.
In 2016, the CIC’s order came a day after Kejriwal wrote to Acharyulu, saying he has no objection to records about him being made public. Kejriwal wondered why the commission wanted to “hide” information on Modi’s educational qualifications. He wrote Modi’s degrees should be brought into the public domain to remove any confusion over the issue.
Acharyulu later directed the Gujarat University to give records of Modi’s educational qualifications to Kejriwal.
The Gujarat University objected to the CIC’s order saying “irresponsible childish curiosity” of someone cannot become public interest under the RTI Act.
In February, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the university, told the court that there was nothing to hide in the first place because information about Modi’s degrees is “already in the public domain”. He added the university also placed the information on its website on a particular date.
Mehta said there was no obligation to give a copy of the university degree of the Prime Minister to any third person under the RTI. He referred to exceptions under the RTI Act for not complying with the CIC’s order. He argued the RTI Act is being used for settling scores and to make “childish jabs” against opponents.
Mehta referred to judgements of the Supreme Court and high courts about the exemptions and added that one cannot seek someone’s personal information just because one is curious about it.
“In a democracy, there would not be a difference if a person holding the office is a doctorate or an illiterate. Also, there is no public interest involved in this issue. Even his privacy is affected.”
Mehta argued the information sought has nothing to do with Modi’s role as a public figure. “If one seeks information under RTI as to what is the height, bank balance, etc of the President of India is, would this be logical? Does it have any public interest?”
He cited the provisions of the RTI Act and said the information sought must be related to public activity. Mehta said the Gujarat University was holding the information about Modi in a fiduciary capacity. He referred to Section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act said such information cannot be disclosed “unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information.”
Mehta argued for allowing the Gujarat University’s plea with cost. “Otherwise, we will be doing a great disservice to the (RTI) Act. The Act is intended for something else, and it is being used for something else.”
Senior Advocate Percy Kavina, who appeared for Kejriwal, argued the nomination forms filed for contesting elections mention educational qualifications. “So, we are asking for a degree certificate and not his mark sheet.” He added the degree was not available on the internet as Mehra claimed.
Kavina argued Gujarat University does not have the locus to challenge the CIC order as it is not an affected party. He said that the Central Public Information Officer of the Prime Minister’s Office was primarily directed to furnish the information.
Mehta said the contention that the university was not affected due to the CIC’s order is incorrect. He added the varsity has been directed to “make the best possible search for information regarding degrees in the name of…Modi…and to provide it to appellant [Kejriwal].”