New Delhi: University of Delhi on Monday said the purpose of RTI was not to satiate a third party’s curiosity as it challenged the central information commission’s order over disclosure of information on Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s degree. Appearing before Delhi High Court’s Justice Sachin Datta, solicitor general Tushar Mehta said students’ information was held by a university in a “fiduciary capacity” and couldn’t be divulged to a stranger for the law exempted it.
“Section 6 provides a mandate that information will have to be given, that is the purpose. But the RTI act is not for the purpose of satisfying someone’s curiosity,” he said.
Right to information (RTI) law cannot be abused or misused by directing disclosure of information unrelated to the transparency and accountability in the functioning of public authorities, argued Mehta.
On the RTI plea of one activist Neeraj, the Central Information Commission (CIC) on December 21, 2016, allowed inspection of records of all students who had cleared the BA exam in 1978 — the year Prime Minister Modi also passed it. The plea sought details of students who wrote the exam in 1978.
The CIC order was however stayed by the high court on January 23, 2017.
Mehta on Monday said, “I can go and ask my university that give me my degree or my marksheet or my papers if rules so permit.. but (exemption from disclosure under section) 8 (1)(e) applies to a third party.” He called the CIC order contrary to the established law and said “indiscriminate and impractical” demands under the RTI Act for a disclosure of “all and sundry” information would be counter productive and adversely affect the efficiency of the administration. “He wants everybody’s information in the year 1978. Somebody can come and say 1979; somebody 1964. This university was established in 1922,” said Mehta.
‘Far-reaching adverse consequences’
DU had said the CIC order had “far-reaching adverse consequences” for the petitioner and all universities in the country that held degrees of crores of students in a fiduciary capacity. In its challenge to the CIC order, DU said the order of the RTI authority was “arbitrary” and “untenable in law” as the information sought to be disclosed was a “third party personal information”.
The DU’s petition called it “completely illegal” for the CIC to have directed it to disclose such an information available to it in a fiduciary capacity. It argued no finding over any pressing necessity or overwhelming public interest warranting disclosure of such information was rendered.
The RTI Act, it said, was reduced to a “joke” with queries seeking records of all students who passed the BA examination in 1978, including the Prime Minister. The CIC, in its order, told DU to allow inspection and rejected the argument of its public information officer that it was a third party personal information, observing there was “neither merit, nor legality” in it.
The university was directed “to facilitate inspection” of the register which stored the complete information on results of all students who cleared the BA exam in 1978 along with their roll number, names of the students, fathers’ names and marks obtained, and provide a certified copy of the extract, free of cost. The matter would be heard later in January .
