PM Modi Degree Row: Gujarat High Court Reserves Verdict On Arvind Kejriwal's Appeal Against Order Imposing Cost
The Gujarat High Court on Thursday (September 24) reserved its verdict on Aam Aadmi Party supremo Arvind Kejriwal's appeal against the order imposing a cost of ₹25,000 on him in connection with the disclosure of information concerning Prime Minister Narendra Modi's degree.Kejriwal had preferred the appeal against the March 2023 judgment of a single judge, which had quashed a 2016...
The Gujarat High Court on Thursday (September 24) reserved its verdict on Aam Aadmi Party supremo Arvind Kejriwal's appeal against the order imposing a cost of ₹25,000 on him in connection with the disclosure of information concerning Prime Minister Narendra Modi's degree.
Kejriwal had preferred the appeal against the March 2023 judgment of a single judge, which had quashed a 2016 Central Information Commission (CIC) direction requiring Gujarat University to provide information concerning degrees in the name of Prime Minister Narendra Modi.
The University had approached the single judge challenging the CIC's direction.
The single judge had held that information concerning the Prime Minister's educational degrees was exempt from disclosure under Sections 8(1)(e) and 8(1)(j) of the Right to Information Act in the absence of any larger public interest warranting disclosure. The Court had also imposed a cost of ₹25,000 on Kejriwal.
After hearing the parties, a division bench of Chief Justice Sunita Agarwal and Justice DN Ray today said, "Heard. Judgment reserved".
During the hearing, Kejriwal's counsel in his rejoinder submissions pointed to paragraph 40 of the single judge's order which had imposed cost of Rs. 25,000 and said that the only thing put against him is that despite the degree being available on the website he still "persisted" with the matter.
"My learned friend from the other side had started by saying that they have already put the degree on website. If they have already put the degree on the website then where is the cause of action in the writ petition? As far as I am concerned, I am like a bystander I have not persisted with anything. I have not filed the RTI application, and these are all admitted facts. It was taken as suo-motu, I was made a respondent. Our submission is that we never persisted with anything. I am aggrieved with para 40," the counsel said.
He argued that the only allegation against Kejriwal was that despite the information being available on the University's website, he had "persisted" with the matter.
The counsel further submitted that the University itself had stated that what was available on its website was a "record of degree" and not the degree itself.
He also pointed out that Kejriwal had not filed any reply for nearly three years and questioned how it could be said that he had persisted with the proceedings.
The counsel submitted that Kejriwal was willing to bring the matter to a closure, stating that his only grievance was against the observation in paragraph 40.
The Bench then orally asked the University's counsel whether, if Kejriwal made a statement that he wanted to bring the issue to an end once and for all, the University would agree to waive the cost.
The University's counsel however said that it was not agreeable to doing away with the cost.
The counsel submitted that the matter had been extensively argued before the Single Judge and that the proceedings, including subsequent press conferences and the review petition, demonstrated that Kejriwal could not now contend that he was merely a “bystander” in the matter.
For context, Kejriwal had filed a review of the single judge's order which was rejected.
Kejriwal's counsel, however, reiterated that he had challenged the cost even in the review petition, maintaining that he had never persisted with the matter and that the information sought was not available on the University's website at the relevant time.
The High Court thereafter reserved its judgment on the appeal.
In the previous hearing the University had urged the High Court to impose further costs on Kejriwal to ensure that the RTI Act is not misused and government officials are not made to spend productive working hours dealing with requests that do not serve the Act's purpose.
Case title: ARVIND KEJRIWAL v/s GUJARAT UNIVERSITY & ORS.
R/CA/2234/2023 IN F/LPA/36863/2023 IN R/SCA/9476/2016