Gujarat HC quashes CIC direction to provide Modi's PG degree to Delhi CM, imposes Rs 25,000 fine on Kejriwal

The Gujarat High Court allowed a petition moved by Gujarat University (GU) challenging direction of Central Information Commission (CIC) asking the varsity to provide post graduate degree of Prime Minister Narendra Modi under Right to Information Act (RTI) to Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal.

While setting aside the direction of CIC, Justice Biren Vaishnav also imposed a fine of Rs 25,000 on Delhi CM Kejriwal. The Delhi CM was party respondent in the case. The court refused to stay its order after a request by Kejriwal's lawyer for appealing the verdict.

In 2016, GU had moved the court challenging the order passed by CIC directing it to provide information to Delhi chief minister Arvind Kejriwal on the graduation degree of Modi.

The then information commissioner M Sridhar Acharyulu had passed the direction to the Prime Minister's Office to provide information of Modi's graduation and post graduation degrees to GU as well as Delhi University to help them in searching those documents. GU approached the court stating that CIC didn't have jurisdiction to pass such an order and pleaded the court to quash it.

Also read | Under PM Modi's leadership, attempt is being made to destroy country: Kejriwal in Delhi Assembly

The Delhi Chief Minister himself never filed any formal RTI application. It happened after he provided information about his electoral photo identity but criticised CIC publicly saying that it was "obstructing information on Modi's degrees."

The CIC took cognisance of Delhi CM's response as an application and issued notice to PMO to provide "specific number and year" of degrees of "Narendra Damodardas Modi" for making the search for the documents easy for GU and Delhi University.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta had appeared for the state government-run university and argued, "Although the varsity had nothing to hide, a very short and significant question arises for consideration before the court is whether, in principle, the Right to Information Act be applied either for extraneous purpose to satisfy somebody's curiosity or to give a job opportunity to a few individuals who are misusing the provisions. So, in principle the university is contesting."

Mehta had argued, "No objection so far as degree is concerned... degree is in public domain.. degree was placed in public domain in more than one forum. This particular degree nobody is hiding. But, in principle, this needs to be examined." Mehta argued that seeking education qualification of a public person has to satisfy the RTI exemption clauses that it must be in public interest. He said that "just because the public is interested, it can't be held that it is of public interest."

Mehta said that elections can't be questioned on the basis of educational qualification. "Can you seek any personal information merely because you are curious about it? Can a CM seek information about the health of a PM?," Mehta argued. He gave examples of federal laws of the United States of America and the United Kingdom, which guard personal information of citizens.

At the end of his submission, he had told the court that the varsity's petition should be allowed with a cost. "Otherwise, we would be doing a great disservice to the Act, which is intended for something else but it is used for something else...it is used for settling political scores, used for childish jabs against opponents."

Appearing for Kejriwal, senior lawyer Percy Kavina responded, saying "Settling political scores and politics is inextricably linked with this matter because of the allied parties who are politically antithetical to each other. He stated that provisions under RTI are clear that one shouldn't be required to give the purpose of seeking information.

Kavina argued that direction is to furnish information to the public information officer (PIO) of Gujarat University under RTI Act and not the varsity itself. There is no order against the university.

"The university is a statutory body which can't hold the brief for somebody else no matter how desirable it is. The commission directed the PIO of the Prime Minister's Office and Gujarat University. Why should GU spring to the defence of a person who has not chosen to challenge this order. The PIO of the PMO, public information officer of PMO, is the principal directee... he has not chosen to challenge this order," Kavina argued. He also said that instead of challenging it in the high court, an alternative remedy was available for filing an appeal against the commission's order.

He argued that when a candidate contesting elections discloses his or her educational qualification, he goes out of the purview of exemption under RTI Act. "An attempt was made and we inquired that a person doesn't hold qualification. It is an offence to file wrong information. Kavina also contended that no information related to the degree was available in the public domain.

"Entire case of the university is being pleaded for by a person who is not before the court. If the university is directed to comply with an order then it is for the person whose information is to be given to be asked yes or no. The order can be treated as a request. Do you have a problem? If you have, I will consider it...it is how the rule of law operates. Ex-US president Donald Trump and US president Joe Biden's houses were also investigated by the FBI. No one is above the law," Kavina had argued.