Is the educational degree a piece of personal information under the RTI Act, 2005?

The recent Gujarat High Court judgment has raised the issue of disclosure of degree of an individual under the RTI Act, 2005. This article analyses the CIC order against which a petition was filed to the High Court in purely legal terms without taking any sides.

Neeraj Saxena v. District Election Officer, GNCTD, CIC/SA/C/2015/000275, 29.4.2016

Background

1.     In the second appeal which came up before the CIC, the main issue was supply of information about transportation request of Electoral Photo Identity Card (EPIC) of Mr Arvind Kejriwal. The Commission thought it is reasonable to give opportunity to Mr Kejriwal to express his views on possibility of holding position of a legislator and Legislature Party as public authority under RTI Act. He has expressed no objection for disclosing the information about him as contained in records. But he was silent on the main part of the notice, for which his representatives were given some more time.

2.     Mr Kejriwal raised a demand for information about Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s educational qualifications referring to Hans Raj Jain case, in which complaint about information of Mr Modi’s graduation was a subject matter. He stated that while CIC wanted Mr Kejriwal’s information to be given, CIC was obstructing the information about degrees of Mr. Modi, the Prime Minister. He expressed surprise over this and also doubted objectivity of the Commission. (In Hans Raj Jain v. Delhi University, CIC/SA//2014/001424 - When a copy of the degree of Mr. Narendra Damodar Modi was sought, the Delhi University had replied that it may not be possible to secure the details especially when there no mention of specific roll number along with the year­ number in which degree was allotted. Mr. Hans Raj filed a complaint (not second appeal) against Delhi University for not furnishing the information sought, within time.

3.     The Commission order says that it “considers the response of Mr Kejriwal, the Chief Minister of Delhi, as application under RTI in his capacity as a citizen”.

Views of the CIC (with comments in blue colour)

1.     The educational qualifications related information about public authority or public servant or political leader occupying constitutional position is not hit by any exception under Section 8 of RTI Act. (It is personal information and hence, hit by Section 8(1)(j) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person. Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person. of the RTI Act).

2.     It cannot be stated as personal or private information. (Such information is private information as held by judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court of India v. Subhash Chandra Agarwal in CA No. 10044 of 2010 with CA No. 10045 of 2010 and CA No. 2683 of 2010 wherein the import of “personal information” envisaged under Section 8(1)(j) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person. Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person. of RTI Act has been exemplified in the context of earlier ratios laid down by the same Court in the matter(s) of Canara Bank v. C.S. Shyam in CA No.22 of 2009; Girish Ramchandra Deshpande v. Central Information Commissioner & Ors., (2013) 1 SCC 212 and R.K. Jain vs. Union of India & Anr., (2013) 14 SCC 794.)

3.     The information about educational degrees of Prime Minster is already in public domain.  (Clip relating  to  education,   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yaDp8UPjeVU (full interview  https://www.youtube.com/ watch?v=shyXSvQW4_w). (The CIC could have taken the argument that what is already in public domain cannot be held as private)

4.     Public Interest - The curiosity cannot be equated with public interest. Just because the public is interested in it, it does not mean that it is in public interest. (While stating the logic, the CIC has not acted according to it).

5.     There is no educational qualification prescribed for contesting any electoral position under law. (It is another reason for not disclosing the degree).

6.     When a citizen holding the position of Chief Ministership wants to know the degree related information of the Prime Minister, it will be proper to disclose. (Since when has the RTI Act been granting different differential treatment to an ordinary citizen and a Chief minister?)

Order

1.     The PMO to provide specific number and year of the degree and PG degree to the Delhi University and the Gujrat University offices so that it will be easy for them to search and provide any documents relating to it.

2.     The PIOs of Delhi University and Gujarat University, Ahmadabad to make best possible search for the information regarding degrees in the name of “Mr. Narendra Damodar Modi” in the year 1978 (Graduation in DU) and 1983 (Post Graduation in GU) and provide it to the appellant Mr Kejriwal, as soon as possible.

LEGAL INFIRMITIES IN THE CIC ORDER

1.     There was no appeal before the CIC seeking the degree of the Mr. Narendra Damodar Modi.

2.     The issue of disclosure of degree of the Mr. Narendra Damodar Modi was not the subject matter before the CIC in the case.

3.     The Delhi University and Gujarat University were not parties before the CIC in the matter and hence, there views were not heard.

4.     The CIC suo motu took up the matter on the basis of reply received from Mr Arvind Keriwal.

5.   The educational degree is a personal information which is exempt from disclosure under section 8(1)(j) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person. Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person. . The only condition it could have been disclosed is if there is a larger public interest. The CIC order did not discuss why in the larger public interest, the information should be disclosed. The fact that what is already in public domain can no longer said to be personal could have been the basis for ordering disclosure of information.