Overview
The Delhi High Court on 10 February 2026 granted three weeks to Delhi University (DU) to file its objection to the alleged delay in filing appeals against the August 2025 order that refused disclosure of Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s bachelor’s degree details. The matter, involving RTI activist Neeraj, AAP leader Sanjay Singh and advocate Mohd. Irshad, underscores the tension between transparency under the Right to Information (RTI) Act and privacy of public figures.
Key Developments
- Development 1: The Court allotted DU until 27 April 2026 to submit its reply on the procedural delay in filing appeals against the single judge’s August 2025 order.
- Development 2: Solicitor General Tushar Mehta argued that the issue is being sensationalised and that there is “nothing in the matter”, seeking additional time for a detailed response.
- Development 3: The original single‑judge order (25 August 2025) set aside the Central Information Commission’s (CIC) directive, holding that holding a public office does not automatically make all personal information, including academic credentials, open to public scrutiny.
Important Facts
- Fact 1: The CIC, on the basis of an RTI filed by Neeraj, had on 21 December 2016 ordered inspection of records of all students who cleared the B.A. exam in 1978, the year Mr. Modi graduated.
- Fact 2: The legal battle highlights the interpretation of Section 8(1) of the RTI Act concerning “information about the personal life of a public authority” and the balance between the public’s right to know and individual privacy.
Exam Relevance
This case is directly relevant to UPSC General Studies Paper II (Governance, Constitution, Polity, Social Justice) and Paper III (Technology, Media, Information). It illustrates judicial interpretation of the RTI Act, the role of the Central Information Commission, and the limits of transparency concerning public officials. Questions may probe the legal framework of RTI, the concept of “public office” vs. “personal information”, and the judiciary’s role in mediating such disputes.
Way Forward
The pending hearing on 27 April 2026 will determine whether procedural delays can be leveraged to sustain the CIC’s order or whether the court will uphold the single judge’s view limiting disclosure. A clear jurisprudential stance could set a precedent for future RTI requests involving personal data of elected representatives, influencing policy on information access, privacy safeguards, and accountability mechanisms.