PM Modi Degree Row: Delhi High Court Asks DU To File Objections To Delay In Filing Of Appeals, No Notice For Now

A division bench comprising Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela however did not issue notice in the matter. It ordered,

"SGI Tushar Mehta appears for respondent. Objection to application seeking condonation of delay may be filed within three weeks. Response to the said objection if any be filed by the appellants in next two weeks. List on January 16."

The appeals have been filed by Right to Information activist Neeraj, Aam Aadmi Party leader Sanjay Singh and advocate Mohd Irshad.

Senior Advocate Shadan Farasat appared for one of the appellants and said that there are two fundamental errors made by the single judge in the impugned order. 

SGI Tushar Mehta appearing for the Delhi University said: “I would request instead of issuing notice, I am appearing, I will put in my reply. Notice is ultimately for my appearance.”

As the bench noted that there was a delay in filing of the appeals, it asked Mehta to file the objections to the application seeking condonation of delay.

“I was not aware there was delay. I will go through. I have no hesitation in arguing the main matter also,” Mehta said.

The appellants have challenged the single judge order passed on August 25 which set aside an order of the Central Information Commission (CIC) directing the Delhi University (DU) to disclose information.

The single judge had allowed DU's plea filed in 2017 against CIC's order which allowed inspection of records of the students who had passed BA programme in 1978, when Prime Minister Narendra Modi is also stated to have cleared the examination.

The single judge had ruled that information pertaining to an individual's educational qualifications, including degrees and marks, is “personal information”, exempted from disclosure under the RTI Act.

It had also observed that mark sheets or results or degree certificate or academic records of any individual, even if that individual is a holder of public office, are in the nature of personal information. The fact that a person holds a public office does not, per se, render all personal information subject to public disclosure, it had added.

About the Controversy

RTI Activist Neeraj Kumar had filed an RTI application seeking result of all the students who appeared in BA in 1978 alongwith their roll number, name, marks and result pass or failed.

The Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) of the DU denied the information on the ground it qualified as "third party information". The RTI activist then filed an appeal before the CIC.

CIC in the order passed in 2016 said: "Having examined the case, the synonymous legislations and previous decisions, the Commission states that matters relating to education of a student (current/former) fall under the public domain and hence order the relevant public authority to disclose information accordingly."

The CIC had observed that every University is a public body and that all degree related information is available in the varsity's private register, which is a public document.

On DU's appeal, the CIC order was stayed on the first date of hearing on January 24 in 2017.

Title: Mohd Irshad v. DU & other connected matters