The Gujarat High Court dismissed an appeal filed by Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) national convenor Arvind Kejriwal. The appeal had challenged a single-judge bench order that set aside a Central Information Commission (CIC) directive ordering Gujarat University to disclose information regarding Prime Minister Narendra Modi's educational degree.
A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Sunita Agarwal and Justice D.N. Ray upheld the single-judge decision, leaving intact the ₹25,000 fine imposed on Kejriwal.
High Court Observations: Critical Remarks on Legal Conduct
Dismissing the appeal, the Division Bench noted the manner in which Kejriwal approached and pursued the proceedings before the Central Information Commission (CIC).
"The manner in which the appellant responded to the CIC (Chief Information Commission) in the proceedings against him and further pursued the matter by filling the written submissions speaks of itself and need no further comments or observations from us," the Division Bench stated.
The Bench concluded that after evaluating the totality of facts and circumstances, there was no error in the earlier single-judge ruling, and dismissed the petition.
Background of the Dispute
The controversy stems back to 2016, when Arvind Kejriwal wrote to the then Central Information Commissioner, M. Sridhar Acharyulu. In his communication, Kejriwal stated he had no objection to making his own educational details public, but questioned why the commission was withholding information regarding PM Narendra Modi's qualifications.
Treating the letter as an RTI query, the CIC directed both Delhi University and Gujarat University in April 2016 to search and provide information regarding PM Modi’s degrees to Kejriwal.
Gujarat University challenged this directive in the Gujarat High Court, arguing:
-
The information requested did not serve any larger public interest under Sections 8(1)(e) and 8(1)(j) of the Right to Information (RTI) Act.
-
The degree certificate had already been published and made available on Gujarat University's official website.
-
Misuse of the RTI Act wastes public resources and administrative working hours.
The Single-Judge Order and Imposition of Costs
On March 31, 2023, a single-judge bench of Justice Biren Vaishnav quashed the CIC's 2016 order. The court observed that the RTI Act was meant to foster transparency in public administration, not to satisfy curiosity or score political points.
Finding Kejriwal's pursuit of the RTI request "casual" and an abuse of legal process, the single judge imposed a cost of ₹25,000 on him to be paid to the Gujarat State Legal Services Authority. Kejriwal subsequently filed a review petition, which was rejected, leading him to appeal before the Division Bench.
What the Judgment Means
By dismissing Kejriwal's appeal, the Gujarat High Court has reaffirmed that:
-
RTI Boundaries: Personal information, including academic records held by universities in a fiduciary capacity, cannot be sought under RTI without demonstrating a bona fide public interest.
-
Accountability on Costs: The ₹25,000 penalty on Arvind Kejriwal stands, reinforcing judicial precedent against using statutory transparency mechanisms for partisan or vexatious claims.
