New Delhi: The Delhi High Court ruled on Monday that academic records are “personal information” exempt from the Right to Information Act (RTI) unless educational qualifications are a prerequisite or an eligibility criterion for public office, contradicting a 2016 Central Information Commission (CIC) order that effectively directed the disclosure of information about Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s degree from Delhi University.
The 25 August 2025 Delhi High Court ruling sets aside the nine-year-old CIC order that allowed an RTI (Right to Information) applicant to examine Delhi University records of students who completed the Bachelor of Arts (BA) programme back in 1978, when Modi says he graduated his bachelor’s. In 2016, the CIC effectively allowed the inspection of DU student records for more clarity on Modi’s degree.
However, Justice Sachin Datta noted in his current 175-page order that “the information sought by petitioner’s RTI application falls squarely within the exemption contemplated under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act,” and that Prime Minister Modi’s degree cannot be disclosed simply to “satisfy public curiosity”.
Section 8(1)(j) of the Act exempts information that is “personal” and has “no relationship to any public activity or interest” or would cause “unwarranted invasion of privacy”. The only circumstance under which such information may be disclosed is if “larger public interest” justifies it.
Calling the CIC’s approach in its 2016 order “thoroughly misconceived”, the court added that information relating to a degree, marks or results of any individual is not in the nature of “public information”, citing a 2020 Supreme Court ruling in Central Public Information Officer vs. Subhash Chandra Agarwal.
The court said the situation would have been different if educational qualifications had been a prerequisite for eligibility to a specific public office. It added that personal information can only be disclosed if it is needed in the public interest to ensure transparency and accountability in the public employment selection process.
The court relied on previous SC rulings to say that Section 8 of the RTI Act seeks to balance conflicting interests. On one hand, it aims to bring about transparency and accountability by providing access to information under the control of public authorities; on the other, it aims to ensure that the confidentiality of sensitive information isn’t jeopardised.
Emphasising that the relationship between Delhi University and its students is characterised by trust and a duty to act in the students’ best interest, the court noted that the university is obligated to issue results, through marksheets or transcripts, only to the students concerned and not to any third party or the public.
“The framework does not permit the disclosure of marks/grades to any third party. There is an implicit duty of trust and confidentiality in handling students’ academic records,” it noted in its order.
Also Read: ‘Deeply alarmed’: Over 100 vets urge govt body to act against Palamur for animal rights violations
Arguments on Modi’s degree
Representing Delhi University, Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta argued that the Modi’s degree could be shown to the court, but not to the public at large, simply to serve the interests of individuals who are seeking publicity or are driven by public motives.
Seeking to set aside the 2016 order, Mehta argued that disclosure of the information would not be in the public interest to satisfy the “curiosity of others”. The law is not for free people who are out to “satisfy their curiosity or embarrass others”, he had said.
On the other hand, senior advocate Sanjay Hegde, who appeared for Neeraj, the RTI applicant who filed the plea, argued that the 2005 Act allowed for disclosure of information, such as Modi’s degree, in the greater public interest. He contended that such information would normally be published by Delhi University on its notice boards, website, and even newspapers.
Origins of the case
On 21 December 2016, the CIC—an appellate body constituted under the RTI Act, 2005—passed an order based on the RTI application by activist Neeraj, allowing for the inspection of students’ records for the BA programme’s batch of 1978.
The Delhi High Court temporarily stayed the CIC order on 23 January 2017, after the university challenged it before a bench of Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva.
Delhi University argued that all such information is held in a fiduciary capacity, and mere curiosity without any demonstrable public interest does not justify the disclosure of such information under the RTI Act.
Arguments went on after the CIC order was stayed in 2017. The court reserved its orders in the case in February this year after hearing the arguments.
In its 175-page ruling delivered on Monday, the court also acted on a petition filed by one Mohammad Naushadudin under the RTI Act, seeking information from the Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE), about whether former minister and Kyunki Saas Bhi Kabhi Bahu Thi 2 actress Smriti Irani cleared the matriculation examination in 1991 and the intermediate examination in 1993 from CBSE.
In January 2017, the CIC directed the CBSE to facilitate the inspection of relevant records and provide certified copies of documents to the appellant.
“The excuse of the practical difficulty in searching from huge volume of records for the year 1991 and 1993 to furnish the information sought by the appellant is not valid,” the CIC said while directing that the RTI applicant be supplied with the documents.
On Monday, however, the court also set aside this 2017 order.
