The Delhi High Court has expressed concern over the delay in filing appeals related to the disclosure of Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s Bachelor of Arts degree records. A division bench comprising the Chief Justice and another judge directed the Delhi University to file its objections to the application for condonation of delay within three weeks, while granting the appellants two weeks to reply. The case has been listed for further hearing in January.
The appeals were filed challenging a single-judge bench’s August decision, which had set aside an order of the Central Information Commission (CIC). The CIC had earlier directed the university to disclose details of all students who passed the Bachelor of Arts program in 1978 — a list that would include the Prime Minister’s records. The single judge had ruled that such information constituted “personal information” and was therefore exempt from disclosure under the Right to Information (RTI) Act unless there was a demonstrable public interest.
During the proceedings, the Solicitor General, representing the university, stated that the institution would file objections to the condonation plea but was ready to argue on merits if required. The bench, however, stressed that procedural compliance must be addressed before delving into substantive issues. The court made it clear that it would decide on the question of delay before considering the merits of the appeals.
The central issue in the case revolves around the extent to which educational records of public figures can be accessed under the RTI framework. Petitioners have argued that the Prime Minister’s degree information falls under the public interest exception and should be made available to ensure transparency in governance. The university, on the other hand, has maintained that such academic records are personal in nature and disclosure without consent would violate privacy protections guaranteed under the law.
The High Court’s approach underlines the importance of procedural regularity in judicial proceedings. By prioritizing the question of limitation, the bench has emphasized that even cases with significant public interest components must adhere to legal formalities. The outcome of the pending hearing will determine whether the delay will be condoned and if the appeals can proceed to a full examination on the issue of disclosure.
The matter thus continues to attract attention as it raises key questions about the balance between the public’s right to information and an individual’s right to privacy — particularly when the individual is a high-ranking public official.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.