PM degree row: Awarding degree public act under RTI, Delhi HC told

New Delhi: In a hearing over Prime Minister Narendra Modi's educational records, the Delhi High Court was on Wednesday informed that awarding a degree to a student was not a private, but a public act, covered under the ambit of Right to Information (RTI).

Appearing before Justice Sachin Datta, senior advocate Shadan Farasat while representing RTI applicant Irshad who sought disclosure of the PM's degree, argued the Delhi University (DU) was undoubtedly a "public authority" under the RTI Act and divulging information on a degree could not be contested on the ground of locus or intent of the seeker.

The matter relates 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 stayed the CIC order on January 23, 2017.

Farasat said, "Degree is a privilege and not a right. It is a privilege that the state has given me for meeting certain standards. The grant of degree is a public act. It is to represent to public that he is qualified. There is nothing private about it. I don't need a degree for myself. It is a public act."

He argued even a student's marksheet comprised marks that were made public by an university and refuted the existence of a fiduciary relationship between DU and its students in this instance.

"This is information, the creator of which is DU. Degree is given by DU. It is not my degree given to DU," added Farasat.

The RTI Act, he said, was "applicant agnostic" and "reason agnostic" and the onus was on the authorities to make out any case of exemption from disclosure.

"(The questions) 'Why do you need it? why you?' have been done away with. Public or citizen has an interest in everything public and the (question of) 'why are you canvassing?' is irrelevant in RTI. Any information with the public authority is included and exceptions have to be shown," submitted Farasat.

Senior advocate Sanjay Hegde, appearing for another RTI applicant Neeraj, said under the election law, the educational qualification of a candidate had to be disclosed as public has the right to know.

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

DU, through solicitor general Tushar Mehta, on February 11 argued that it 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 RTI law.

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 court has posted the hearing on February 27.