Introduction:
The Delhi High Court is presently dealing with one of the most politically sensitive and legally complex disputes in recent memory. The matter arises out of a petition filed by Delhi University (DU) in 2017 challenging an order passed by the Central Information Commission (CIC). The CIC, through its 2016 decision, had directed DU to disclose the details of students who cleared the Bachelor of Arts programme in 1978, the same year when Prime Minister Narendra Modi is stated to have graduated from the University. On Wednesday, Justice Sachin Datta of the Delhi High Court deferred pronouncement of the verdict on this case to August 25, citing his assignment in the UAPA tribunal, thereby extending the long-standing suspense surrounding the disclosure of the records.
On one side of the dispute is Delhi University, the premier educational institution of India, represented by the Solicitor General of India, Tushar Mehta. DU has consistently maintained that the information sought by RTI applicant Neeraj Kumar involves disclosure of sensitive data of students, and the University holds such data in a fiduciary capacity which cannot be disclosed to third parties without their consent.
On the other side is RTI activist Neeraj Kumar, represented by Senior Advocate Sanjay Hegde, who has been battling for nearly a decade to obtain inspection rights over the BA degree records from 1978. Kumar and his counsel argue that such information falls within the public domain and that universities routinely publish degree and examination results, thereby negating the claim of confidentiality. Supporting this position, the CIC in 2016 had ordered DU to disclose the records, prompting DU to move the High Court for relief.
Arguments from Delhi University’s Side:
Delhi University’s primary argument rests on the principle of confidentiality. The Solicitor General argued that DU indeed possesses the records from 1978 and has no objection to presenting the same before the Court itself. However, allowing public inspection or releasing these details under the RTI framework would amount to violating the personal privacy of students who appeared in the examination that year.
The SG stressed that the University is entrusted with academic records in a fiduciary capacity. Under the Right to Information Act, fiduciary relationships are granted exemptions from disclosure unless overriding public interest is demonstrated. Since the RTI applicant has not shown any such interest other than personal curiosity, DU argues that there is no legal basis to release the records to the public.
He further contended that educational details of a former student cannot be equated with general public documents open to scrutiny. Unlike admissions notices, merit lists, or public announcements, the detailed examination record of students is private information that is not meant to be disclosed decades later merely to satisfy curiosity or fuel political debate.
The University has also emphasized that while it is willing to disclose aggregate data — such as the number of students who appeared in 1978, those who passed, and those who failed — it cannot be compelled to reveal individual-level information like roll numbers, names, father’s names, and marks. Such data, it says, goes far beyond what is required in the public domain.
Arguments from the RTI Applicant’s Side:
Senior Advocate Sanjay Hegde, appearing for RTI applicant Neeraj Kumar, strongly countered DU’s arguments. He highlighted that the essence of the Right to Information Act is transparency, particularly when dealing with public authorities such as universities. Hegde pointed out that DU is a public body funded and operated under statutory authority, and its examination results have historically been public documents.
He argued that universities routinely display such results on notice boards, publish them in newspapers, and in the modern era, release them on official websites. Consequently, the claim that such results are confidential or held in a fiduciary capacity is misplaced. Educational achievements, particularly degrees issued by a public institution, are meant to be verifiable by the public at large.
Hegde further submitted that DU’s reluctance to disclose the information raises doubts about transparency. If DU is indeed in possession of the 1978 degree and results, as claimed by the SG, then making such information public should not be problematic. By refusing to disclose, the University is effectively shielding information that is otherwise routine in nature and should already be accessible to the public.
The RTI applicant’s case rests heavily on the CIC’s findings in 2016. The Commission had examined the legal framework, previous decisions, and the nature of educational records, concluding that such documents fall squarely within the public domain. The CIC had therefore ordered disclosure, a directive which DU has sought to block through its High Court petition.
The Controversy in Context:
The roots of this legal battle lie in an RTI application filed by Neeraj Kumar seeking the results of all students who appeared for the BA examination in 1978, including their roll numbers, names, marks, and whether they passed or failed. The request was not just for aggregate data but detailed records of individual students.
DU’s Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) denied the request, labeling it as third-party information protected from disclosure under the RTI Act. Neeraj Kumar then approached the CIC, which ruled in his favor in 2016. The Commission observed that degrees and examination results are public documents, and DU, being a public body, could not claim confidentiality over such information.
DU challenged this order in the Delhi High Court in January 2017. On the very first date of hearing, the High Court granted a stay on the CIC’s directive. This interim relief has continued for over seven years, preventing disclosure of the information while the matter remained pending.
What makes the case politically sensitive is the claim that Prime Minister Narendra Modi graduated from Delhi University in 1978. Critics and political opponents have often questioned the authenticity of this degree, fueling controversy and public debate. However, as the High Court has consistently noted, the central question before it is one of law — whether the RTI Act mandates disclosure of such information — and not about the Prime Minister personally.
Judicial Observations and Proceedings:
In the course of proceedings, the High Court has grappled with the tension between the principles of transparency and privacy. While the CIC leaned heavily on transparency, the University has pressed its case on the sanctity of student records.
On multiple occasions, the Court has noted that the RTI Act does provide exemptions for fiduciary information and personal privacy. However, the Act also emphasizes that these exemptions can be overridden in cases where a larger public interest is demonstrated. The challenge for the Court has been to determine whether the public interest in disclosing DU’s 1978 records is strong enough to outweigh the claims of privacy.
On Wednesday, August 20, 2025, Justice Sachin Datta was expected to deliver the judgment in this matter. However, due to his assignment in the UAPA tribunal, the pronouncement was deferred to Monday, August 25. The Court’s decision is eagerly awaited, as it will likely clarify the scope of the RTI Act in relation to educational records and establish a precedent for similar disputes across India.