Ready to show the diploma of changes in court, not strangers, du says hc

Delhi University on Thursday informed the High Court of Delhi that she is willing to sue her records on the diploma of Premier Narendra Modi, but not to reveal it to foreigners.

Image: Prime Minister Narendra Modi is addressed to the Advantage Assam 2.0 Investment and Infrastructure summit, in Guwahati, February 25, 2025. Photography: Photo years

Appearing in front of the justice Sachin Datta, the Attorney General Tushar Mehta made the presentation after which the Court reserved the verdict regarding the plea of ​​Du against a CIC order to direct the disclosure of information about the license diploma of the Prime Minister.

“Du has no reservation in showing him before the court (but he cannot) put the record of the University for examination by foreigners,” Mehta said.

The CIC Order, he said, was worth being set aside for the “right to privacy” replaced “the right to know.”

“What is required is the degree of student who is prime minister. As a university, we have nothing to hide. We have the wise record. The university has no objection in showing the record before the court. There is a diploma from 1978, a license in art,” presented Mehta.

Following an RTI request by One Neeraj, the Central Intelligence Commission of December 21, 2016, allowed the inspection of all students who eliminated the exam in 1978 – the year in which Prime Minister Modi passed.

Pleadoaria RTI sought details about all the students who wrote the exam in 1978.

The High Court remained the CIC Order on January 23, 2017.

The Court also reserved the decision for other similar petitions.

Lawyers for RTI applicants defended the CIC order on the grounds that the law on the right to information (RTI) was provided for the disclosure of the educational information of the Prime Minister in a higher public.

On Thursday, Mehta said that “the right to know” was not untreated personal information, and a person’s personal information, which was not related to the public interest or the public function, were protected by the disclosure.

He warned against the wrong use of the RTI law by “activists” and said that allowing the disclosure in this case would lead to the exposure of the vessels to the requests of the RTI in relation to his students.

“This is not the object for which RTI is provided. The law is not adopted for Article 19 (1). It is for transparency (exceptions) under section 8,” said Mehta, claiming that the request is currently for political purposes.

He said that only because the information was more than 20 years old, the test of “the older public interest does not evaporate”.

The law, he said, was not for “free people” who were “outside to satisfy their curiosity” or “embarrassment” to others.

On February 11, Du said that he holds the information of his students in a confidence and “simple curiosity” capacity, in the absence of public interest, he did not give anyone to seek private information in accordance with RTI legislation.

He said that something that is of “interest in the public” was not the same as “public interest” to justify the disclosure under the RTI law and there was no such public interest in this case.

On February 19, the lawyer representing one of the RTI applicants claimed that granting a diploma to a student was not a private act, but a public one covered in accordance with the right to information.

In his challenge for the CIC Order, Du said that the order of the RTI authority is arbitrary and undeniable in law, because the information sought to be disclosed was a third party personal information.

Du said that it was “completely illegal” for CIC to direct the disclosure of an information, which is available in a fiduciary capacity.

The RTI law, he said, was reduced to a “joke”, with questions requesting records of all the students who passed the BA exam in 1978, including the prime minister.

Cic, in his order, asked Du to allow the inspection and rejected the argument of his public information officer that it was personal information of third parties, noting that there is no merit, nor the legality in it.

The university was directed to “facilitate the inspection” of the register who stored the complete information about the results of all the students who deleted the exam in 1978, together with their role number, the names of the students, the names of the fathers and the notes obtained and offers a certified copy, at no cost.