THROUGH the decision of the case- Arvind Kejriwal v. Gujarat University and others, pronounced on September 29, 2026, Chief Justice Sunita Agarwal and Justice D N Ray, at the Gujarat High Court, Ahmedabad, have dismissed the intra-court Appeal filed by the former Chief Minister of Government NCT of Delhi and disposed of the application for stay; holding that on the absolute lack of jurisdiction of the Central Information Commissioner (CIC) to pass the order of September 24, 2016 in absence of any proper application under section 6(1) of the RTI Act, 2005 and the information directed to be disclosed being exempted under section 8(1)(e) and (j) of the RTI Act, 2005, the decision of the writ court is liable to be confirmed.

 

This appeal was directed against the judgement and order of March 31, 2023 passed by the Single Judge quashing the order of April 29, 2016 passed by the CIC with the cost of Rs 25,000/- imposed upon the respondent No. 2 before the writ court (the appellant herein). The appellant confined his challenge to the observations made in paragraphs ‘40’ and ‘41’ of the judgement impugned, where the writ court had made observations about the conduct of the appellant-Kejriwal, to impose cost, while allowing the writ petition. The specific observations made in by the writ court in paragraph 40 that “despite the fact that the petitioner-University had put the degree-in-question on its website and there being clear expression with precision in the pleadings in that regard, the respondent though never ever disputed the degree-in-question in the proceedings, however, has persisted with the matter and, as such cost be imposed”, is sought to be assailed by the appellant’s lawyer seeking intervention of the Appellate Court to expunge the said remarks and also the cost imposed upon the appellant. It was submitted that the observations that the appellant has persisted with the matter, is wholly incorrect, in as much as the appellant was not persistent at any point of time, the appellant was merely a bystander. No application was filed by the appellant at any point of time, and the order impugned was passed by the CIC, taking suo motu cognisance.

 

Even, the present LPA has not been pursued on the merits of the order. Appellant is neither persistent and nor is contesting on the merits of the order of April 29, 2016 of the CIC or the correctness of the judgement impugned. In that view of the matter, the observations in the judgement of the writ court about the conduct of the appellant/respondent-2, are wholly uncalled for. The HC has held that the educational qualification documents such as, marksheet and of degree of an individual (in this case, the Prime Minister Narendra Modi) falls within the ambit of personal information of the said individual, disclosure of which is exempted under the amended section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, though unamended operated with exceptions.

 

Further, the said information is held by the Universities, Boards, Examining Bodies in a fiduciary capacity on behalf of their ex-students, which is again exempted under section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act are to be applied with circumspection, which means so far as the information covered within the exemption clause (e)of the Sub section (1)of section 8, the person or the authority with whom the information is available in his/its fiduciary capacity, shall have no obligation to give such information to any citizen, unless such person/authority is satisfied warrants that the large public interest warrants the disclosure of such information. Any information exempted under section 8 is protected from disclosure under the Act and such information may be denied by the Public Information Officer on an application received as per section 6 (1) of the RTI Act. In this case, both the exemptions under clauses (e) and (j) (even amended) of section 8(1) are satisfied and it is to be held that the University is possessing information pertaining to educational qualification of the students in its fiduciary relationship and the information relating to the degree/educational qualification being personal information are exempted under clause (j). Both the clauses require disclosure of such information clauses only in a case of “larger public interest” justifies the disclosure of No public interest much less larger public interest would require seeking of information of the educational qualification of the Prime Minister of India, who is an elected representative of the People and when his educational qualification has no bearing on his election to the Constitutional post.

 

The order passed by the CIC does not contain any reason as to why disclosure of such information is necessary within the meaning of clause (e) and (j) of section 8(1) of the RTI Act. The casual remark made in the order that the educational qualification related information about the public authority or public servant or political leader qualifications occupying Constitutional position is not hit under section 8 of the RTI Act is in teeth of the Constitution Bench decision of Subhash Chandra Agarwal and KS Puttaswamy wherein it is categorically held that the professional records including qualification, performance, evaluation reports, ACRs, Disciplinary Proceedings, Medical records, treatment, choice of medicine, list of hospitals and doctors visited, findings recorded including that of the family members, information relating to assets, liabilities, Income Tax Returns, details of investments, lending and borrowing etc. (only indicative, not exhaustive) are personal information, which are entitled to protection from unwarranted invasion of privacy and conditional access is available, when stipulation of larger public interest is satisfied. Right to Privacy protected in clauses (e), (g), (j) of section 8(1)are based on the rights guaranteed under Article 21. Section 8(1) (j) has been amended and substituted by section 44(3) of the Digital Protection Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 and in the amended provision, there is an absolute exemption to any information which relates to personal information.

 

This amendment is in line with the Protection of Right to Privacy guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India (as held by the Nine-Judges Constitution Bench in KS Puttaswamy case). The public interest test in the context of the RTI Act would mean reflecting upon the object and purpose behind the right to privacy and right to information and consequences of invasion, and breach of confidentiality and possible harm and injury that would be caused to the third party with reference to a particular information and the person. The HC has expressed considered view that for the mere fact that the personal information about the educational degree was sought that of the Prime Minister of the country, it does not mean that the said information would automatically fall within the purview of ambit or “public interest or larger public interest”. None of the information directed to be disclosed can be said to be necessary for public interest or larger public interest. According to the HC, disclosure of information should have been left to the discretion of the individual concerned, who is holding the public office. Unless or until there is an obligation upon him to disclose or the public authority with whom the information is available, he is obliged to disclose under the RTI Act, 2005.