A division bench, led by Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela, reviewed a series of appeals submitted by RTI activist Neeraj, Aam Aadmi Party leader Sanjay Singh, and advocate Mohd Irshad. During the latest court session, the bench did not issue a notice but directed that objections to a request for condonation of delay be filed within three weeks. The appellants are contesting a single judge's ruling from August 25 that invalidated a Central Information Commission (CIC) directive requiring the Delhi University (DU) to provide access to specific student records. Senior Advocate Shadan Farasat, representing one of the appellants, highlighted two critical errors made by the single judge in the disputed order.
Tushar Mehta, representing DU, opted not to seek notice and stated that he would submit a reply instead. The bench pointed out delays in the submission of appeals and requested Mehta to address the application for delay condonation. In response, Mehta expressed his unawareness of the delay but offered to discuss the primary case if needed.
The contentious issue arose from Neeraj Kumar's RTI request for details, including marks and results, of students who graduated from DU's BA program in 1978, notably the year when Prime Minister Narendra Modi also purportedly graduated. The DU denied the request, claiming the information constituted 'third-party information.' Following this, Kumar appealed to the CIC, which ruled in its 2016 order that educational records should be considered public information and should be disclosed by public bodies like universities. The CIC upheld that student education details belong to the public domain and thus fall under the obligation for transparency as enshrined in the RTI Act.
However, DU's appeal led the single judge to determine that educational qualifications, including degrees and academic records, represent personal information exempt from the reach of disclosure laws. This rationale suggests that holding a public office does not automatically require disclosure of all personal data associated with the individual. As the situation unfolds, the next scheduled court date for further proceedings is set for January 16, awaiting the filing of the necessary objections and responses between the parties involved.