New Delhi: The Delhi High Court on Monday set aside an order of the Central Information Commission (CIC) directing CBSE to provide copies of the Class X and XII records of BJP leader Smriti Irani.
Justice Sachin Datta said her educational qualifications were not in the nature of any statutory requirement for holding any public office or discharging official responsibilities.
The court, as a result, allowed the petition of the Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) challenging the CIC’s January 17, 2017 order, which directed it to “facilitate inspection of relevant records and provide certified copies of documents selected by the appellant free of cost, except personal details in admit card and mark sheet…”
The CIC orders were stated to be out of scope of the provisions of the RTI Act.
New Delhi: After Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s degree row, the Delhi High Court on Monday, August 25, set aside an order of the Central Information Commission (CIC) directing CBSE to provide copies of the Class X and XII records of BJP leader Smriti Irani.
Justice Sachin Datta said her educational qualifications were not in the nature of any statutory requirement for holding any public office or discharging official responsibilities.
The court, as a result, allowed the petition of the Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) challenging the CIC’s January 17, 2017 order, which directed it to “facilitate inspection of relevant records and provide certified copies of documents selected by the appellant free of cost, except personal details in admit card and mark sheet…”
The CIC orders were stated to be out of scope of the provisions of the RTI Act.
Justice Datta also decided the matter over PM Narendra Modi’s degree in his 175-page judgment.
In PM’s case Delhi University challenged the CIC order asking it to disclose the details related to his bachelor’s degree.
The court set aside the CIC order in PM Modi’s degree case while holding it to be “personal information” and ruling out any “implicit public interest”.
Also ReadPM Modi’s degree details cannot be disclosed as its ‘personal info’: Delhi HC
In Irani’s case, the high court similarly found “no implicit public interest” with respect to the information sought through the Right To Information (RTI) application.
“Again, the educational qualifications concerned are not in the nature of any statutory requirement for holding any public office or discharging official responsibilities,” it held.
The court said public interest under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act required an element of overriding necessity for disclosure to protect or promote a significant public cause.
“It needs to be emphasised that disclosure of academic details sans any overriding public interest, would amount to an intrusion into the personal sphere which is constitutionally protected post K S Puttaswamy (supra). The fact that the information sought pertains to a public figure does not extinguish privacy/ confidentiality rights over personal data, unconnected with public duties,” it said.
Justice Datta further said “what may superficially appear to be an innocuous or isolated disclosure” could open “floodgates of indiscriminate demands, motivated by idle curiosity or sensationalism” instead of an objective “public interest” consideration.
“The RTI Act was enacted to promote transparency in government functioning and not to provide fodder for sensationalism,” the court said.
The CIC’s direction to the private school to trace the roll number of the public functionary concerned (whose personal information was sought) and provide the same to the CBSE was held to be “completely de-hors the provisions of the RTI Act”.
The RTI application was filed by one Mohd Naushadudin seeking certain information from the CBSE, including “whether the (then) Union HRD Minister Smriti Irani has cleared the matriculation examination in the year 1991 and intermediate examination in the year 1993 from your Board?”
“If yes”, the plea said, “then I want xerox copies of her class X and XII admit card (hall ticket) and mark-sheet.”
The public information officer denied the requested information after which the RTI applicant filed a first appeal before the First Appellate Authority of CBSE which upheld the PIO’s decision.
Dissatisfied with the outcome, the RTI applicant filed a second appeal before the CIC which directed the CBSE to provide the information.
Get the latest updates in Hyderabad City News, Technology, Entertainment, Sports, Politics and Top Stories on WhatsApp & Telegram by subscribing to our channels. You can also download our app for Android and iOS.
