Delhi High Court Deem Educational Records Personal Info
Delhi High Court, in a significant ruling concerning privacy protections under India’s Right to Information (RTI) Act, today set aside orders from the Central Information Commission (CIC) directing the disclosure of Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s educational qualifications. The court’s decision, delivered by Justice Sachin Datta, not only quashed multiple CIC directives but also established sweeping precedents on how personal information, including degrees, marksheets, and academic records, must be handled under RTI laws.
The judgement has sparked disappointment among transparency advocates who argue it undermines accountability in India’s democratic framework. The judgment, which classifies degrees as “personal information” exempt from RTI unless a compelling public interest is proven, has raised questions about whether a prime minister, as a public servant, should be obligated to verify educational claims made in election affidavits. Critics, including RTI activists, contend that the decision risks legitimizing opacity, particularly when false declarations in electoral documents could mislead voters, highlighting a tension between privacy rights and the public’s right to know in a democracy.
The case stemmed from a batch of writ petitions filed by the University of Delhi and the Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) challenging CIC orders from 2016-2017. These orders had mandated the release of details related to PM Modi’s alleged Bachelor of Arts degree from Delhi University in 1978 and his school records from CBSE. RTI applicants, including activists and individuals like Neeraj Sharma, Mohd Naushadudin, and Sanjay Singh, sought verification of Modi’s qualifications amid public debates during his tenure as Prime Minister. The CIC had ruled in favor of disclosure, arguing that educational records are public documents generated through public activities like examinations and convocations.
However, the High Court overturned these findings, labeling them “thoroughly misconceived” and “de hors the statutory provisions.” The 175-page judgment analyzed the RTI Act’s exemptions under Section 8(1)(e) and 8(1)(j), fiduciary relationships between universities and students, and the overriding role of constitutional privacy rights. Citing Supreme Court precedents like Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court of India v. Subhash Chandra Agarwal (2020) and K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017), the court held that educational records qualify as “personal information” exempt from disclosure unless a “larger public interest” is demonstrated.
Key Observations from the Delhi High Court’s Judgment
The court’s ruling expanded on several critical legal principles, potentially influencing future RTI cases involving personal data:
- Educational Records as Personal Information: The court explicitly categorized “marks obtained, grades, and answer sheets” as personal information under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. Justice Datta observed that such data is protected from unwarranted invasion of privacy, even if it pertains to public figures. “The fact that a person holds a public office does not, per se, render all personal information subject to public disclosure,” the judgment noted, rejecting arguments that academic achievements lose privacy status because they are conferred publicly, such as in convocations.
- Fiduciary Relationship Between Universities and Students: Drawing from precedents like Kerala Public Service Commission v. State Information Commission (2016), the court affirmed that universities act as fiduciaries for students’ data. This relationship imposes a duty of confidentiality, exempting disclosure under Section 8(1)(e). The judgment highlighted Delhi University’s statutes and ordinances, which position it as a “custodian” of student records, akin to a trustee. “The university exercises discretionary powers impacting students’ futures, creating a trust-based dynamic,” the court explained.
- Public Interest Test Redefined: The court clarified that “public interest” under RTI must involve a “pressing social need” or “compelling requirement,” not mere public curiosity. It distinguished between “something of interest to the public” (e.g., sensational details) and “something in the public interest” (e.g., exposing wrongdoing or ensuring eligibility for public office). In Modi’s case, no such overriding interest was found, as his qualifications were not statutory prerequisites for his role. The judgment warned against “indiscriminate demands” that could “open floodgates” for privacy invasions, potentially bogging down public institutions.
- 20-Year Rule and Enduring Privacy Rights: Addressing Section 8(3) of the RTI Act, which limits exemptions after 20 years (except for national security), the court ruled that privacy under Article 21 is a “continuing right” not eroded by time. “Mere efflux of time does not justify overriding privacy,” it stated, interpreting the provision harmoniously with constitutional guarantees post-Puttaswamy. This “constitutional lens” ensures personal data remains protected indefinitely unless compelling public interest demands otherwise.
- Penalties on PIOs Set Aside: In related petitions challenging CIC-imposed fines on Delhi University’s Public Information Officers (PIOs) for rejecting defective RTI applications (e.g., improper IPOs), the court quashed the penalties. It found the rejections stemmed from procedural adherence, not malice, and criticized the CIC for disproportionate actions. “The RTI Act should not become a tool of oppression,” the judgment echoed Supreme Court sentiments.
Background of the Case: RTI Requests and CIC’s Stance
The controversy began in 2015-2016 when multiple RTI applications targeted Modi’s academic history amid political allegations of falsified qualifications. Applicants sought details like roll numbers, marks, and degree authenticity from Delhi University and CBSE. The PIOs rejected these under RTI exemptions, citing privacy and fiduciary duties.
The CIC, however, sided with applicants in orders like the one dated December 21, 2016 (in Neeraj Sharma’s case), equating degrees to public records and dismissing privacy claims. It argued that convocations make qualifications public and cited U.S. FERPA laws distinguishing “directory information” (disclosable) from sensitive data. The CIC even drew analogies to property registration, calling degrees “public documents” accessible for verification.
Delhi University and CBSE challenged these in the High Court, arguing that CIC orders violated privacy rights and ignored Supreme Court precedents. Interim stays were granted in 2017, halting disclosures.
RTI and Privacy in India
This ruling arrives amid growing debates on data privacy, especially post the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 (DPDP Act), which amended RTI to strengthen exemptions for “personal information.” The court’s “evolving jurisprudence” reference aligns with this, potentially influencing how courts interpret RTI in the digital age.
For PM Modi, the decision shields his records from further RTI probes unless “larger public interest” is proven—e.g., if qualifications were mandatory for office. No immediate reactions came from the Prime Minister’s Office or opposition parties, but the verdict could deter similar RTI campaigns against politicians.
Connect with us at mystory@aawaazuthao.com