New Delhi, August 26, 2025 – The Delhi High Court on Monday struck down a Central Information Commission (CIC) directive that required the University of Delhi to allow inspection of records related to the Prime Minister’s Bachelor of Arts degree. Justice Sachin Dutta criticized the CIC’s approach, calling it “thoroughly misconceived.”

Context of the Verdict

The CIC had ordered the university to facilitate scrutiny of academic records for all students who passed the BA exam in 1978, the same year as the Prime Minister. Justice Dutta dismissed the directive, emphasizing that “marks obtained, grades and answer sheets” are personal information under the RTI Act and not subject to disclosure unless clearly justified by public interest.

The judgment also clarified the difference between public interest and mere curiosity, stating that demands driven by sensationalism undermine the purpose of the RTI Act.

Why the Court Found the CIC Wrong

Justice Dutta said the CIC’s stance amounted to a misuse of RTI, stressing that transparency must not become a tool for political spectacle. He noted a lack of “implicit public interest” in revealing the Prime Minister’s academic records and warned that even seemingly harmless disclosures could encourage a flood of frivolous requests.

The court also cited the landmark K.S. Puttaswamy judgment, reaffirming that privacy—especially regarding personal educational data—remains protected even for public figures when not directly connected to official duties.

Broader Reactions and Significance

Legal experts said the ruling underscores that the RTI Act is not meant to expose personal details of public officials unless directly relevant to governance. The decision highlights the court’s intent to strike a balance between transparency and privacy rights.

Opposition leaders, however, criticized the ruling. Some argued that academic records of elected leaders should be publicly available, citing democratic accountability. Congress leader Jairam Ramesh termed the refusal to disclose Modi’s academic credentials as “incomprehensible” and contrary to long-standing practice.

Implications Ahead

The verdict sets a precedent on the limits of disclosure under RTI, especially in cases involving personal information and high-profile individuals. It narrows the definition of public interest, making clear that transparency applies to matters related to official performance and governance—not personal history.

What Comes Next

The CIC will need to review its future handling of RTI requests for personal data. Courts are likely to apply stricter scrutiny to ensure privacy is protected without diluting genuine transparency. The ruling reinforces judicial responsibility to safeguard individual rights while ensuring accountability in governance.

Source: