The Delhi High Court on Tuesday asked Right to Information (RTI) activist Neeraj Sharma whether any public interest was involved in his request under the RTI Act for records of students who had cleared the Bachelor of Arts (BA) course from Delhi University (DU) in 1978, the year in which Prime Minister (PM) Narendra Modi is said to have graduated from DU in political science.
Justice Sachin Datta posed the question after the DU opposed the order passed by Central Information Commission (CIC) in 2017 directing the DU to furnish the information requested by Sharma.
The CIC order would have effectively meant allowing inspection of degree records of PM Modi, a contentious issue, since his political opponents have repeatedly claimed that the educational credentials furnished by PM Modi are fake.
"Is there any public interest in seeking the details," the Court asked Sharma's counsel.
Earlier, Solicitor General (SG) Tushar Mehta, appearing for DU, told Justice Sachin Datta that the university holds degree details of all students in a fiduciary capacity and the same cannot be divulged under Right to Information Act (RTI Act).
Mehta also questioned the credentials of the RTI applicants on whose plea the CIC had passed the disclosure order in 2017.
He further said that the RTI applicants had not paid the requisite fees under the RTI Act.
The Court after hearing the SG and the counsel for RTI applicant posted the case for further consideration on February 19.
During the hearing, the Court also questioned the RTI applicant over non-payment of fees and the fiduciary argument raised by the SG.
"If you succeed on 'fiduciary capacity' point, you are through," Justice Sachin Datta told Sharma.
Background
Subsequently, Aam Aadmi Party supporter Neeraj Sharma had filed an RTI with Delhi University seeking details of PM Modi’s degree.
Modi had sworn in his
election affidavit that he graduated from DU in the B.A. Political Science course in the year 1978. The University had denied disclosure of the information stating that it was “private” and had “nothing to do with public interest”.
In December 2016, Sharma moved the CIC against the University’s response. Information Commissioner Prof Madhubhushanam Acharyulu passed an order directing Delhi University to make the register containing the list of students who passed the Bachelor of Arts programme in 1978, public.
On 23 January 2017, the University moved Delhi High Court challenging the CIC order.
The Court had in January 2017 issued notice to Neeraj Sharma and
stayed the order after noting SG Mehta’s arguments that the order has far-reaching adverse consequences for the petitioner and all universities in the country which hold degree details of crores of students in a fiduciary capacity.
Hearing today
During the hearing of the matter on Tuesday, SG Mehta, appearing for DU, questioned the credentials of the petitioner.
"Filing RTI is a profession these days. Now RTI activist is a designation in itself, it is a profession.How doctors and CAs have visiting cards. It is misused, abused as observed previously by court," he said.
He also said that the University has a fiduciary duty to protect students' information.
He further pointed out that out of the four RTI applications, three were rejected since they had not paid the requisite fees under RTI Act.
"So the application was not even processed. So you did not pay the fees, that is why it was rejected," the Court asked Neeraj Sharma's counsel.
"His defect was curable in nature, it did not have to get dismissed," Senior Advocate Sanjay Hegde, appearing for Sharma, replied.
"You should have filed a fresh application with 10. Every Public Officer gets hundreds and thousands of applications," the SG said.
Hegde further contested the claim by DU that it holds the degree details of students in fiduciary capacity.
"If I were to tell the universe I need help of a scribe, I need to get my way around but I am visually challenged, this is fiduciary. Marks are not external information. If I go to the driving test, the pass or fail information is external. That fiduciary relation does not come with the evaluated paper with university," Hegde contended.
The information officer has to see if the disclosure will cause public good or cause harm, Hegde added.
"Degree related information is in public domain. Access to information has to be provided for ordinary man or celebrity," he said.
The Court will resume hearing the matter on 19 February 2025.
