गुजरात उच्च न्यायालय ने निर्णय दिया: पीएम मोदी की शिक्षा निजी जानकारी, सार्वजनिक हित नहीं

- Home

- /

- High Courts

- /

- Gujarat High Court

- /

- No Public Interest In Disclosing...

No Public Interest In Disclosing Prime Minister's Educational Qualification, Degree Is Personal Information: Gujarat High Court

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

30 Sept 2026 2:08 PM IST

The Gujarat High Court has observed that there is no public interest in disclosure of the Prime Minister of India's educational degrees, as he is an elected representative of the people and his educational qualifications have no bearing on his election to the Constitutional post. [2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 263]The court made the observation in its order rejecting Kejriwal's appeal against an...

This is a premium content

Available exclusively to

Our subscribers

Subscribe Premium INR 1099+GST

Your support helps us to bring you more content at

an affordable subscription scheme !!!

All payment options available

The Gujarat High Court has observed that there is no public interest in disclosure of the Prime Minister of India's educational degrees, as he is an elected representative of the people and his educational qualifications have no bearing on his election to the Constitutional post. [2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 263]

The court made the observation in its order rejecting Kejriwal's appeal against an order imposing ₹25,000 costs on him in connection with the disclosure of information concerning Prime Minister Narendra Modi's degree.

Kejriwal had preferred the appeal against the March 2023 judgment of a single judge, which had quashed a 2016 Central Information Commission (CIC) direction requiring Gujarat University to provide information concerning degrees in the name of Prime Minister Narendra Modi. The University had approached the single judge challenging the CIC's direction.

On the University's fiduciary duty vis-a-vis disclosure of degree, a division bench of Chief Justice Sunita Agarwal and Justice DN Ray in its order said that educational qualification documents, such as mark-sheet and degree of an individual, 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 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 subject to when the disclosure necessitated on a larger public interest, the court said.

"As held by the Apex Court, exemptions under the RTI Act are to be applied with circumspection, which means in so far as the information covered within the exemption clause(e) of subsection(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 that the larger 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 the instant case, both the exemption under clauses (e) and (j) (even amended) of sub-section(1) of Section 8 are satisfied, and it is to be held that the University is possessing information pertaining to educational qualification of its 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 only in a case "the larger public interest" justifies the disclosure of such information. 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 court added.

The court also observed that 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.

It said that the "casual remark" made in the order that educational qualifications related information about the public authority or public servant or political leader occupying Constitutional position, is not hit under Section 8 of the RTI Act is in teeth of the Constitution Bench decision of the Supreme Court in Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court of India v/s. Subhash Chandra Agarwal (2020) and K.S.Puttaswamy v/s. Union of India (2017).

The court said that Right to privacy is protected in clauses (e), (g), (j) of Section 8(1) which is 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, the court said, is in line with the protection of the right to privacy guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India as held by the Nine-Judges Constitution Bench in K.S.Puttaswamy.

The court said public interest test in the context of the RTI Act would mean reflecting upon the object and purpose behind the right to information, the right to privacy 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.

"In view of the above discussion, we reach at a considered opinion that for the mere fact that the personal information about the educational degree sought was 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 the "public interest or larger public interest", the exception to the exemptions under Section 8 (1)(e) and (j) of the Act. The fact that the information about the educational degree of the Prime Minister is already in the public domain, as noted by the CIC has no relevance in so far as the consideration of obligations under the RTI Act," the court added.

The court also observed that the directions issued by the Information Commissioner requiring the PMO (Prime Minister Office) to "provide specific number and year" of the degree and "PG degree to the Delhi University and Gujarat University office" to facilitate the University to search and provide any documents relating to it, and further directing the DU's PIO and Gujarat University to search for information on the degrees and provide them to Kejriwal is directly hit by Section 8(1)(e) and (j) of the RTI Act.

"None of the information directed to be disclosed can be said to be necessary for disclosure in public interest or larger public interest," the court said.

The court further observed that the CIC taking suo-motu cognizance of a letter written by AAP leader Arvind Kejriwal at the second appeal stage under RTI Act and directing Gujarat University to disclose PM Narendra Modi's degree was without authority and against prescribed procedure.

The court dismissed the appeal finding no error in the single judge's order.

Case title: ARVIND KEJRIWAL v/s GUJARAT UNIVERSITY & ORS.

R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 796 of 2026

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 263

Powered by Nyaya 247 News