Kumar Bahukhandi
Prime Minister Narendra Modi-Credit: PMO via PTI Photo
New Delhi : The Delhi High Court on Monday August 25, 2025 set aside a CIC order directing disclosure of details related to Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s bachelor’s degree while holding it to be “personal information” and ruling out any “implicit public interest” in it.
Justice Sachin Datta, who reserved the verdict on the matter on February 27, was acting on Delhi University’s plea challenging the CIC order.
The judge said “something which is of interest to the public” was quite different from “something which is in the public interest”.
Following an RTI application by one Neeraj, the CIC on December 21, 2016, allowed inspection of records of all students who cleared the BA exam in 1978 — the year Prime Minister Modi also passed it.
The high court, however, stayed the CIC order on January 23, 2017.
On Monday, the verdict found no implicit public interest with respect to the information sought under the RTI application and said the educational qualifications were not in the nature of any statutory requirement for holding any public office or discharging official responsibilities.
“The fact that the information sought pertains to a public figure does not extinguish privacy/confidentiality rights over personal data, unconnected with public duties,” the order said.
The RTI Act was stated to have been enacted to promote transparency in government functioning and not to “provide fodder for sensationalism”.
“It is unambiguously clear that the ‘marks obtained’, grades, answer sheets, etc., are in the nature of personal information and are protected under Section 8(1)) of the RTI Act, subject to an assessment of overriding public interest. The mere act of publishing certain information on some occasions does not dilute the legal protection accorded to personal information under Section 8(I) of the RTI Act,” the court held.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, who appeared for DU, had argued the CIC order deserved to be set aside.
He, however, said the university had no objection in showing its record to the court.
“University has no objection in showing the record to the court. There is a degree from 1978, bachelor of art,” Mehta said.
DU challeneged the CIC order on the ground that it held the information of students in a fiduciary capacity and “mere curiosity” in the absence of public interest did not entitle anyone to seek private information under the RTI law.
The counsel for the RTI applicants had previously defended the CIC’s order on the ground that Right to Information (RTI) Act provided for disclosure of the prime minister’s educational information in greater public good.
