PM Modi degree row: Something of 'interest to public' and public interest not same, DU tells Delhi High Court

New Delhi: In a matter over making public PM Narendra Modi's degree, Delhi University on Tuesday argued in the Delhi High Court that something of "interest to public" was not the same as "public interest", warranting a disclosure under RTI.

Solicitor general Tushar Mehta, representing DU, made the argument before Justice Sachin Datta in relation to an order of the Central Information Commission (CIC) on December 21, 2016, allowing inspection of records of all students who cleared the BA exam in 1978 -- the year Prime Minister Modi also passed it.

The high court had stayed the CIC order on January 23, 2017.

"Mere curiosity that 'I want to know about it what is your objection' cannot be an argument. Public may get interested in something but it may not be public interest..Is there any public interest in this matter? Answer in the facts of this case is no," Mehta said.

In its plea challenging the CIC decision, DU called it an order that was “arbitrary” and “untenable in law” as the information sought to be disclosed was a “third party personal information”.

He said DU held the information in a fiduciary capacity and "mere curiosity" in the absence of public interest did not entitle anyone to seek private information under the Right to Information (RTI) law.

Senior counsel Sanjay Hegde, appearing for the RTI applicant who sought the information before the CIC, defended the order and submitted the marks obtained by a student were not held in a fiduciary capacity by an education institution.

He said "elected offices" favoured disclosure of several information, like their assets, to enable a voter to make a decision and academic qualification also fell in the same category.

Hegde argued the RTI Act provided for disclosure of such information in greater public good.

"The fact that it relates to an old degree does not immunise the information from being republished.. Marks, whether pass or fail, are not external or pre-existing information given by a student in fiduciary capacity. It is generated by the university in the process," he submitted.

Hegde added, "No private person has come to say don't disclose it. University has come." Senior advocate Trideep Pais, representing some of the intervenors, argued under the RTI Act, any information which was more than 20 years old ought to be provided irrespective of the exemptions of privacy and fiduciary relationship under the law.

The varsity, he said, had even live-streamed its convocation and the information sought in the case was available with DU as it was "preserved forever".

RTI activists Anjali Bhardwaj, Nikhil Dey and Amrita Johri sought to intervene in the matter to assist the court on certain legal issues but the bench said it wasn't hearing a PIL and granted liberty to the intervenors to file a written synopsis of their submissions.

Mehta objected to the intervention application and said they had no locus standi in a litigation between two entities simply because they were "experts".

The RTI applicant and the intervenors, said Mehta, were "busy bodies" and "meddlesome interlopers". He cautioned against the abuse of the RTI law, which according to him served a "good purpose".

"A third person can't walk up and say give me personal information of A, B, C because I am curious about it. This is a classic case — not only the applicant who has applied for the degree is a busy body and intermeddler but also the others who want to be heard on law that is settled," he added.

The DU counsel said educational qualification was private and could not be unjustifiably demanded and the interest of public in a private matter was against privacy.

This is not a case where there is any requirement of degree as eligibility criteria and nobody out of curiosity can demand details of other students, Mehta said.

The DU has said it was "completely illegal" for the CIC to direct the disclosure of an information, which is available to it in a fiduciary capacity.

The RTI Act, it said, was reduced to a "joke" with queries seeking records of all students who passed the BA examination in 1978, including the Prime Minister.

The CIC, in its order, asked DU to allow inspection and rejected the argument of its public information officer that it was third party personal information, observing there was “neither merit, nor legality” in it.

The university was directed to "facilitate inspection" of the register which stored the complete information on results of all students who cleared the BA exam in 1978 along with their roll number, names of the students, fathers' names and marks obtained, and provide a certified copy of the extract, free of cost.

The matter would be heard on February 19.