The University of Delhi (DU) argued before the Delhi High Court on Monday that the Right to Information (RTI) Act is not intended to satisfy a third party’s curiosity.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing DU, challenged the Central Information Commission’s (CIC) 2016 order directing the university to disclose information about students, including Prime Minister Narendra Modi, who cleared the Bachelor of Arts (BA) examination in 1978.
Mehta contended that students’ academic records are held by universities in a “fiduciary capacity” and cannot be shared with unrelated parties.
He emphasized that Section 6 of the RTI Act mandates the disclosure of information only for ensuring transparency and accountability in public authorities, not for fulfilling personal curiosity.
The 2016 RTI plea, filed by activist Neeraj, sought details of all students who appeared for the BA exam in 1978. The CIC had directed DU to allow inspection of records, including names, roll numbers, fathers’ names, and marks obtained by students, and to provide certified copies of relevant extracts.
However, the Delhi High Court stayed the CIC order on January 23, 2017.
Mehta criticized the CIC’s directive as contrary to established legal principles, calling it an “indiscriminate and impractical” demand that could set a precedent for unnecessary requests.
He argued that the CIC order undermined administrative efficiency and posed “far-reaching adverse consequences” for DU and other universities that safeguard the academic records of millions of students.
DU maintained that the requested information constituted “third-party personal information” and lacked any pressing public interest to justify its disclosure.
The university argued that the CIC’s decision was arbitrary, legally untenable, and reduced the RTI Act to a “joke” by entertaining such broad and intrusive queries.
The CIC had dismissed DU’s objection, stating that there was “neither merit nor legality” in its refusal to disclose the records. The commission directed the university to facilitate inspection of the relevant register and provide the information free of cost.
Mehta countered that permitting such disclosure would open the floodgates for requests concerning any year since the university’s establishment in 1922. He asserted that individuals have the right to request their own academic records but not those of unrelated third parties.
The case is scheduled for further hearing later in January.
If you enjoyed reading this article then please share it and bookmark our website for latest updates.
