The ‘character’ of a leader and his concern for the welfare of the people are more important than
his educational qualification, the Gujarat High Court ruled in the controversy over Prime
Minister Narendra Modi’s degree.
Today, the Court overturned decisions made by the Chief Information Commission (CIC), which
had ordered Gujarat University and Delhi University to provide PM Modi’s diplomas from his
undergraduate and graduate studies in accordance with the Right to Information Act (RTI Act).
According to Justice Biren Vaishnav, there is no required educational qualification for leaders to
run for office. As a result, the majority of candidates elected to Parliament or state legislatures
are ‘fairly educated, even if they are not graduates or postgraduates.’“Thinking of illiterate candidates is based on a false assumption.” Experience and events in
public life and legislatures have shown that the divide between the well-educated and the less
educated is rather thin. Much depends on the individual’s character, in terms of devotion to duty
and concern for the welfare of the people. “These characteristics are not limited to well-educated
people,” the order stated.
In addition, the Court chastised the Chief Information Commissioner (CIC) and Delhi Chief
Minister Arvind Kejriwal, both of whom were respondents before the Court.
It was noted that the order was issued based on an ‘oral’ request made by Kejriwal in a callous
and cavalier manner.
“This court finds that the CIC was well aware, when passing the impugned order, that what it
was directing was a fishing and roving inquiry,” the High Court said.,”
Justice Vaishnav thus slammed Kejriwal for misusing the provisions of the RTI Act.
“There has been an indiscriminate misuse of the salutary provisions of the RTI Act in the present
case for the purposes not contemplated by the legislature while enacting the said Act. In this
case, the manner in which a request was made by Respondent No.2, who was neither an
Applicant nor an Appellant and was only a respondent before the CIC, leaves much to be
desired. Such requests cannot be made so casually as to be a mockery of the RTI Act’s very intent
and purpose,” the Court stated.
As a result, it imposed a 25,000 fine on the Delhi Chief Minister.
Arvind Kejriwal’s indiscriminate use of the RTI Act.
Gujarat High Court
Justice Vaishnav rejected Senior Advocate Percy Kavina’s arguments on behalf of Kejriwal that
voters have the right to know how qualified their candidates are and that this information should
be properly disclosed in nomination forms.
According to the judge, the law only allows for the mention of a candidate’s educational
qualifications on affidavit. Nowhere does it state that the candidate is required by law to first
annex the documents and then make them public.
The judge also stated that the law requires a candidate to disclose his or her criminal history as
well as financial information.
“If Respondent No. 2’s (Kejriwal’s) argument is accepted and taken to its logical conclusion, it
would mean that a candidate is under statutory compulsion to make public not only his
educational certificates but also documents pertaining to his criminal antecedents such as
charge sheets, statements of witness, etc. and documents pertaining to his financial assets such
as income tax returns, certificates of fixed deposits, etc,” the Court concluded.There is no public interest in learning about PM Modi’s degrees.
The Court even rejected the argument that disclosing PM Modi’s degrees is in the public interest.
It was noted that the CIC concluded in its own order that the information sought was neither
relevant to accountability nor of general public interest in its disclosure.
The requested disclosure was more of a matter of ‘public interest’ and political curiosity than of
public interest.
“As a result, the Commission should have strictly applied the exemptions contemplated in RTI
Act sections 8(e) and (j) and should have refused disclosure of the aforementioned information.”
Instead, the Commission issued an omnibus finding that educational qualification information
about public officials, employees, or political leaders holding constitutional positions is not
exempt under Section 8 of the RTI Act,” the judge concluded.
Furthermore, the Court stated that it was unable to understand the CIC’s reasoning or legal
basis for reaching the aforementioned conclusion.
“In the absence of any larger public interest, which is neither pleaded nor raised,” the court said,
“this court holds that PM Modi’s educational degrees are exempt from disclosure under the
provisions of section 8(1)(e) and (j) of the RTI Act.”
It went on to say that Kejriwal had simply established a case of “something of public interest,”
rather than a legal case of “something in the public interest.”
The certificate for the PM’s degree is already available on the University website.
In addition, the Court stated that the PM’s degree certificate is already available on the Gujarat
University website.
It agreed with Solicitor General Tushar Mehta’s contentions that Kejriwal’s insistence on
obtaining PM Modi’s educational degree through RTI when it is already publicly available casts
doubt on his sincerity and motive.
“Despite the degree in question being posted on the petitioner University’s website for all to see,
despite this fact being made expressly clear with precision in the pleadings before this Court, and
despite the respondent never ever disputing the degree in question either during the pendency of
these proceedings or even during final hearing,” the Court stated.
The Court stated that this is yet another reason to impose costs on Kejriwal.
“In the absence of any valid ground of public interest, this court finds that the application also
fails to qualify the public interest test due to an ostensible motive and purpose that appears tothis court to be more politically vexatious and motivated, rather than being based on sound
public interest considerations,” the judge noted.
The CIC issued a very casual order.
The Bench noted that the CIC issued the order based on an ‘oral’ request from Kejriwal, and thus
said it was issued in a callous and cavalier manner.
The High Court took issue with the Information Commissioner’s use of his own father’s ideology
in passing the order.
Then Information Commissioner M Sridhar Acharyulu had invoked his father and freedom
fighter MS Acharya in his order directing the Gujarat and Delhi Universities to furnish details of
PM Modi’s degrees.
“The Information Commissioner’s reference to his father’s ideology and comment, as well as the
constituent debate in which a critique has been made for not restricting adult franchise on the
basis of illiteracy, are completely extraneous reasonings going into the root of the commission’s
decision making process.”It is unfathomable that an authority exercising quasi-judicial powers
at the Second Appellate Stage would exercise those powers in such a manner,” the Court stated
emphatically.
Furthermore, it held that the CIC overstepped its jurisdiction by considering the oral request,
entered the political arena, and engaged in judicial activism because it was overwhelmed by the
fact that the information was sought by a citizen holding the position of Chief Minister.
“In this court’s opinion, the Information Commissioner appears to have lost sight of the
distinction between judicial commission and public forum.” “The observation and reasoning
made by the information commission compels this court to hold that such observations were
beyond the scope of judicial considerations that the commission is required to adhere to while
adjudicating statutory second appeals under the provisions of the RTI Act,” the Court stated.
Gujarat University was represented by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, Advocates Rajat Nair,
Kanu Agarwal, and Dharmishta Raval.
Union of India was represented by Additional Solicitor General Devang Vyas.
Arvind Kejriwal was represented by Senior Advocate Percy Kavina and Advocates Aum Kotwal
and PP Chandarana.
The CIC was represented by Advocate Shivang Shah.
TUSHAR VASHISTH students of 3rd year BBA LLB at CHANDIGARH UNIVERSITY
