New Delhi: Delhi University (DU) on Tuesday presented its case in the Delhi High Court, challenging a 2016 Central Information Commission (CIC) order which allowed public inspection of records of all students who cleared the BA exam in 1978, the same year Prime Minister Narendra Modi passed his exam. The court had stayed the CIC order on January 23, 2017.

Public interest or curiosity?
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing DU, argued that something of "interest to public" was not the same as "public interest," and that mere public interest or curiosity was not sufficient to warrant disclosure under the Right to Information (RTI) Act. "Mere curiosity that 'I want to know about it, what is your objection' cannot be an argument," he stated, emphasizing that public interest should be the determining factor. Mehta insisted that in this case, there was no public interest in revealing the information about Modi’s academic qualifications.

DU's plea
In its plea challenging the CIC decision, DU labelled the order as "arbitrary" and "untenable in law," arguing that the requested disclosure involved “third party personal information” held in a fiduciary capacity by the university. The university contended that such personal information could not be disclosed under the RTI Act unless there was a clear public interest.

Arguments in favour of disclosure
Senior counsel Sanjay Hegde, representing the RTI applicant, defended the CIC’s decision, arguing that marks obtained by a student were not held by educational institutions in a fiduciary capacity. He compared academic qualifications to assets of elected officials, which are disclosed for public benefit. Hegde stressed that information on a public figure’s academic credentials falls within the RTI’s scope for transparency and greater public good.

Legal perspectives
Senior advocate Trideep Pais, representing intervenors, argued that the RTI Act mandates the release of any information more than 20 years old, regardless of privacy concerns. He pointed out that DU had live-streamed its convocation, and such information was public, preserved indefinitely.

RTI activists' involvement
RTI activists Anjali Bhardwaj, Nikhil Dey, and Amrita Johri sought to intervene, offering their legal expertise, but the court refrained from hearing the public interest litigation (PIL) and granted them the opportunity to submit written synopses. Mehta objected to their intervention, describing them as “busy bodies” and "meddlesome interlopers."

DU's stance on privacy
The university’s counsel reiterated that educational qualifications are private matters and should not be unjustifiably disclosed. Mehta warned that misuse of the RTI Act could undermine its intended purpose. “This is not a case where there is any requirement of degree as eligibility criteria," he stated, adding that no one could demand details of other students out of mere curiosity.

CIC's ruling
The CIC had directed DU to facilitate the inspection of records, rejecting the university’s claim that the information sought was third-party personal data. The commission ruled that there was "no merit" in DU's objections and ordered the university to provide a certified copy of the records, including the marks of all students who passed in 1978, free of cost.

The matter is scheduled for further hearing on February 19.

With PTI inputs