Smriti Irani degree row: Delhi HC quashes CIC order asking CBSE to disclose former minister’s educational records

The Delhi High Court on 25 August overturned the Central Information Commission (CIC) order which had directed the Central Board of Secondary Education to disclose BJP leader Smriti Irani’s educational records comprising Class X and XII copies.

Justice Sachin Datta stated that her educational qualifications were not a statutory requirement for holding a public office or carrying out official duties, PTI reported. As a consequence, the court permitted the CBSE’s petition contesting the CIC’s January 17, 2017 order which asked 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…”

“No implicit public interest’

It saw “no implicit public interest” with respect to the information asked through the Right To Information (RTI) application.”

The CIC orders were deemed to be “de hors”, meaning beyond the scope, of the RTI Act’s provisions. Justice Sachin Datta also addressed the issue of Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s academic qualifications in his 175-page judgment.

In that case, Delhi University had contested the CIC’s directive requiring disclosure of details about the Prime Minister’s bachelor’s degree. The court overturned the CIC order, classifying the degree information as “personal information” and concluding that there was no overriding “public interest” justifying its release.

“Again, the educational qualifications concerned are not in the nature of any statutory requirement for holding any public office or discharging official responsibilities,” the court observed.

The court stated that for information to be disclosed under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, there must be a compelling need to do so in order to safeguard or advance a substantial public interest.

“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 mentioned.

Justice Datta further added “what may superficially appear to be an innocuous or isolated disclosure” could lead “floodgates of indiscriminate demands, motivated by idle curiosity or sensationalism” rather 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 stated. The CIC’s order to the private school to look out for the roll number of the public functionary concerned (whose personal information was sought) and give the same to the CBSE was considered to be “completely de-hors the provisions of the RTI Act”.

Mohd Naushadudin filed the RTI application seeking some information from the CBSE, consisting of “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?” The plea stated, “If yes, then I want xerox copies of her class X and XII admit card (hall ticket) and mark-sheet.”

The Public Information Officer (PIO) refused to disclose the requested information, prompting the RTI applicant to file a first appeal with the CBSE’s First Appellate Authority, which upheld the PIO’s decision. Unhappy with this result, the applicant then filed a second appeal with the CIC, which instructed the CBSE to release the information.