PM Modi's degree personal info under RTI: Court cancels panel's order to disclose details

The Delhi High Court set aside the Central Information Commissioner's 2016 order and ruled that Delhi University need not disclose details of Prime Minister Narendra Modi's 1978 graduation degree.

 The Delhi High Court on Monday ruled that Delhi University is not required to disclose details of Prime Minister Narendra Modi's graduation degree, holding that such information falls under "personal information," and set aside the Central Information Commissioner's order directing its release.

The court noted that academic records constitute personal information, even for those holding public office, and that there is no overriding public interest in disclosing them.

“Educational qualifications are personal information”; Unpacking Delhi High Court verdict on disclosure of PM Modi and Smriti Irani’s academic records

The RTI Act was enacted to promote transparency in government functioning and not to provide fodder for sensationalism.” Published on August 27, 2025

Delhi High Court:

While hearing bunch matters wherein orders passed by the Central Information Commission (‘CIC’) directing University of Delhi and Central Board of Secondary Education (‘CBSE’) to furnish academic records of Prime Minister Narendra Modi and former Minister Smriti Zubin Irani were challenged, the Single Judge Bench of Sachin Datta, J, set aside the impugned orders stating that such information constitutes ‘personal information’ and its disclosure was exempted under Section 8(1)(j) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (‘RTI Act’).

Background

The present case dealt with 6 connected matters wherein the CIC had directed the University of Delhi and CBSE to furnish academic records of individuals including Prime Minister Narendra Modi and former Minister Smriti Irani upon applications filed under the RTI Act.

The CIC, in all 6 matters, had allowed the applicants to inspect copies of the requested documents. By order dated 21-12-2016, the CIC directed University of Delhi to facilitate inspection of relevant register where complete information on the result of all students who passed in Bachelor of Arts, in year 1978 (the year in which PM Modi is also stated to have obtained his degree) along with roll number, names of the students, father’s name and marks obtained before 30-12-2016.

The CIC had held that disclosure of details of educational records of a student, maintained at a university, did not infringe his/her right to privacy.

Matters relating to educational qualifications of a student (former/current) fell under public domain and hence there was no violation of Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.

While the same was under challenge before the Court under W.P. (C) No. 600 of 2017, the respondent in W.P.(C) No. 13568 of 2023, had filed an application under RTI Act for inspection of documents relating to the degree of PM Narendra Modi.

The CIC, by order dated 8-9-2017, had disposed of the application stating that a similar application, under W.P. (C) No. 600 of 2017 was pending before the Delhi High Court and thus the matter was sub judice.

By order dated 17-1-2017, the CIC had directed CBSE to facilitate inspection of relevant records and provide certified copies of documents except personal details in admit card and mark sheet.

 The applicant in this case had requested the marksheet and Class Xth and XIIth result of former minister Smriti Zubin Irani.

The CIC had opined that Ms. Irani, being an elected Member of Parliament at the relevant time, was a public authority under the RTI Act and therefore, the defense under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act could not be made available to her.

Upon hearing submissions for all 6 petitions, the Court formulated the following issues for determination:

Whether a Board/University (in particular, the Delhi University) was exempt from disclosing information pertaining to the educational qualifications/ results / mark sheets / degrees of an individual by virtue of Section 8(1)(e) and/or Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act? Whether ‘larger public interest’ justified disclosure of the information sought even if the same fell within the purview of Section 8(1)(e) and/or Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act?

Even assuming that the supply of information was precluded under Section 8(1)(e) and/or Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, whether disclosure of information was mandated under Section 8(3) of the RTI Act?

Analysis, Law and Decision While Section 3 of the RTI Act grants all citizens the right to information, Section 8 carves out exceptions where such right may be curtailed.

The Court noted that Section 8(1) of the RTI Act begins with a non-obstante clause thereby giving it an overriding effect over all other provisions of the RTI Act.

The exemptions may be categorised in two ways: Clauses (a), (b), (c), (f), (g), (h), and (i), wherein disclosure is impermissible regardless of any plea of public interest; and Clauses (d), (e), and (j), which incorporate a public interest override.

Under these clauses, information may be disclosed if the competent authority [in the case of clauses (d) and (e)] or the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), the State Public Information Officer (SPIO), or the appellate authority [in the case of clause (j)] is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies such disclosure. Therefore, the right under Section 3 is not absolute and is qualified by the provisions under Section 8(1).

i.              Whether a Board/University is exempt from disclosing information pertaining to the educational qualifications of an individual by virtue of Section 8 exemptions?

ii.                   Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act exempts from disclosure any personal information that is not related to any public activity or interest, or the disclosure of which would result in an unwarranted invasion of an individual’s privacy.

iii.                  Section 11 of the RTI Act complements this by safeguarding information that has been treated as confidential by a third party.

iv.                  The RTI Act, therefore, draws a clear distinction between the concepts of privacy and confidentiality.

v.                   The Court observed that a fiduciary relationship exists between a student and a university, wherein a student entrusts the university with personal information (academic records, personal data etc.) with a reasonable expectation of confidentiality and fair use.

vi.                 The degree of control and unilateral decision-making power can be said to be akin to a trustee in respect of a trust.

vii.                Further, the Court stated that Ordinance IX (4) of the Delhi University provides for issue of transcripts which indicates issuing of results to the student but not to the public.

viii.              The framework does not permit the disclosure of marks/grades to any third party.

ix.                 Hence, there is an implicit duty of trust and confidentiality in handling students’ academic records.

           Thus, the Court held that the data/information pertaining to an individual’s educational qualifications, including degrees and marks, constitutes ‘personal information’ which is specifically exempt from disclosure under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.

           ii. Whether ‘larger public interest’ justifies disclosure of the information sought?

           The Court relied on the case of Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court of India v. Subhash Chandra Agarwal, (2002) 5 SCC 481, and noted that ‘something which is of interest to the public’ is quite different from ‘something in public interest’.

            Interest of the public in private matters cannot impinge upon the exemption provided under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.

           The Court further noted that disclosure was not mandated in situations where the information sought had no relation to any public activity.

           The public interest override would not be attracted where the information sought has no bearing on the discharge of responsibilities by the concerned public official/functionary (whose personal information is sought).

            Public interest considerations would prevail where if the information sought had a bearing on the performance of official responsibilities entrusted to a public functionary, or where the information sought concerns exposure of wrongdoing in the discharge of official functions, financial impropriety, inefficiency and/or has a bearing on the very eligibility for holding a particular office.

            There should be a clear, rational and direct nexus between the information sought and such ‘public purpose’.

            The Court opined that mark-sheets/results/degree certificate/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.”

           Hence, in the present case, the Court noted that no public interest was implicit in the disclosure of the information as sought through the RTI applications and therefore, disclosure cannot be made mandatory for the same.

           iii. Whether disclosure of information is mandated under Section 8(3) of the RTI Act? It was contended by the respondents that since the information in the present case pertained to a period beyond 20 years, Section 8(3) of the RTI Act mandates disclosure, rendering the exemptions under Section 8(1)(e) and Section 8(1)(j), inapplicable as Section 8(3) provides that information relating to any occurrence, event or matter which had happened twenty years before the date of request shall be provided if requested by a person.

           However, the Court, rejected the said contention and noted that, “In the post K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (supra) era, the Right to Privacy has been unequivocally recognized as a Fundamental Right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

            It is no longer tenable to assert that personal information loses its protected status solely on account of the passage of time.

            Privacy / confidentiality of personal information, is not time bound, and mere passage of twenty years does not obliterate constitutional protection.”

            The Court, hence, held that Section 8(3) of the RTI Act would not automatically override the exemption under Section 8(1)(j) when the information is inherently personal and protected under the right to privacy.

             The Court therefore held that the information sought by the RTI applications fell squarely within the exemptions under Section 8(1)(j) and thereafter the orders of CIC directing University of Delhi and CBSE to furnish information were liable to be set aside....