CIC Could Not Have Directed Suo-Motu Disclosure Of PM Modi's Degree, Outside Scope Of RTI Act: Gujarat High Court
Court further held that Arvind Kejriwal should not have used RTI proceedings for political motives.
The Gujarat High Court has ruled that the Central Information Commission taking suo-motu cognizance of a letter written by AAP leader Arvind Kejriwal at the second appeal stage under RTI Act and directing Gujarat University to disclose PM Narendra Modi's degree was without authority and against prescribed procedure. In doing so the court also observed that no public interest, much less...
The Gujarat High Court has ruled that the Central Information Commission taking suo-motu cognizance of a letter written by AAP leader Arvind Kejriwal at the second appeal stage under RTI Act and directing Gujarat University to disclose PM Narendra Modi's degree was without authority and against prescribed procedure.
In doing so the court also observed that no public interest, much less larger public interest, would require seeking information of PM's educational qualification who is an elected representative of the people and when his educational qualification has no bearing on his election to the Constitutional post.
The court made the observation in its order rejecting Kejriwal's appeal against an order imposing ₹25,000 costs 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.
For context, the then Central Information Commissioner had “suo motu decided the controversy as regards the qualification of the Prime Minister without any proceedings pending before him”. The suo motu order was passed by the Commission while considering an application filed by an RTI applicant regarding Kejriwal's electoral photo identity card.
Suo-motu order outside RTI's scope
A division bench of Chief Justice Sunita Agarwal and Justice DN Ray referred to the scheme of the RTI Act and observed that the procedure prescribed under Section 6(1) of the RTI Act, 2005 requires a person desiring information to make representation in writing through physical mode or in electronic means in the from of an application accompanied with the fee prescribed, specifying the particulars of the information sought by him.
Thus, the bench said, there was no question of entertaining any request at the second appellate stage by the CIC, which has been given power to receive and inquire into complaint from any person, who has been refused access to any information requested under the Act or information provided to him is incomplete, misleading or false information.
"From the Scheme of the Act, it is evident that access to secure information under the control of public authorities, the right to seek specific information is to be exercised by a person, who is desirous to obtain such information under the Act. In any case, in absence of a proper request in writing submitted to the Public Information Officer of the concerned public authority, there is no question for any authority established under the RTI Act, 2005 to provide any information to anyone.
The act of the CIC in taking suo motu cognizance to pass the Adjunct order treating the respondent No.2 as an applicant based on the letter dated 28.04.2016 written by him and the written submissions submitted in a proceeding before him, is completely outside the scope of the RTI Act, 2005," the court added.
The bench said that the single judge was justified in observing that the act of the statutory authority exercising quasi-judicial powers at the second appellate stage is nothing but an act of "clear transgression of the jurisdiction" vested with the Commissioner under the provisions of the RTI Act and is completely unsustainable in the eye of law.
The bench also referred to single judge's order who had held that statutory authorities and the Courts should not be treated as a public platform to ventilate the political vengeance.
"A political leader holding the public office cannot use the statutory proceedings for their political motives. The manner in which the appellant responded to the CIC in the proceedings against him and further pursued the matter by filling the written submissions speaks of itself and need no further comments or observations from us," the bench said.
The court also noted the submissions of Kejriwal's counsel before single judge stressing upon Right of Voters/citizens of the country to know about the educational qualifications of a candidate seeking election to a public office.
"But the fact remains that the applicant is seeking information under the Right to Information Act, 2005, which is guided by the statutory scheme, which is a Code in itself. To interpret the nature of the information sought by a citizen whether exempted under Section 8 of the RTI Act, 2005 and the procedure for providing information as requested is guided by the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005...In any case, the RTI Act, 2005 cannot be used as a tool to ventilate personal grudges or political vendetta against an individual even if he or she is holding a public office, and information sought may be refused by the RTI authorities, unless the information requested is falling within the scope of Section 3 of the RTI Act, conferring right upon the citizen to have such information, and not an information(s) enumerated and required to be published under Section 4(1)(b) & (c) of the RTI Act, 2005.
...we reach at an irresistible conclusion that the manner in which the Information Commissioner, Central Information Commission has acted in the present case from the very inception and making observations on his own notions expanding the scope of the procedure for dealing with the request for seeking information, he has simply crossed the boundaries within which he was supposed to act," the court said.
The court also said that the then Commissioner had himself recorded in the order that the information sought for was neither for any public interest nor the same was relatable to accountability or transparency in discharge of public function performed by the Prime Minister of India.
However, the bench said, that the CIC gave a "cryptic reasoning" that the educational qualification relating to the public authorities, public servant or political leader occupying constitutional position, is not hit by any exception under Section 8 of the RTI Act without giving any supporting reasons and had directed the University to provide the information to Kejriwal considering his oral request as an application.
The court dismissed the appeal finding no error in the single judge's order.
Case title: ARVIND KEJRIWAL v/s GUJARAT UNIVERSITY & ORS.
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 796 of 2026