Gujarat HC Quashes CIC’s Order Directing Gujarat Varsity To Provide Info On PM Modi’s Degree; Rs 25K Imposed On...
Gujarat High Court Quashes CIC’s Order Directing Gujarat University to Provide Info on PM Modi’s Degree; Rs 25,000 Cost Imposed on Petitioner
Background
The Central Information Commission (CIC) had directed Gujarat University to disclose information regarding the degree of Prime Minister Narendra Modi in response to an RTI application.
The petitioner challenged this CIC order before the Gujarat High Court.
The High Court quashed the CIC order, ruling that the university was not obligated to provide such information.
Additionally, the Court imposed a cost of Rs 25,000 on the petitioner for filing what it deemed a frivolous petition.
Legal Issues Involved
Whether the degree certificate or related information of a public figure like the Prime Minister falls under the purview of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act)?
Whether the CIC’s direction to disclose such information was justified?
Whether imposing costs on a petitioner for filing frivolous or vexatious petitions is permissible?
Gujarat High Court’s Reasoning
1. Privacy and Confidentiality of Academic Records
Academic records and certificates, though issued by public universities, involve personal data.
The Court noted that disclosure of such information, particularly of public figures, must balance transparency with right to privacy.
The Court relied on the principle that not all information held by public authorities is meant for disclosure if it affects privacy.
2. No Public Interest Justification
The Court held that no sufficient public interest was demonstrated to justify disclosure of the PM’s degree certificate.
The petitioner failed to show any reasonable nexus between the information sought and public interest.
RTI requests must be made with a genuine public interest, not for mere curiosity or harassment.
3. CIC’s Jurisdiction and Overreach
The Court opined that the CIC overstepped its jurisdiction by directing the university to disclose information without considering privacy and public interest.
The CIC’s role is to balance transparency with privacy, which the Court found was not done here.
4. Imposition of Costs on Petitioner
The Court imposed a cost of Rs. 25,000 on the petitioner for filing a frivolous and vexatious petition.
This was to discourage misuse of RTI for harassment or fishing expeditions.
Courts have inherent powers to impose costs under Section 35 of the RTI Act and general procedural rules.
Relevant Case Law Principles
1. Subhash Chandra Agarwal v. CIC, (2014) 7 SCC 338
The Supreme Court held that RTI applications should serve public interest, and information that invades privacy without sufficient cause need not be disclosed.
2. Rajneesh v. CIC, (2018) 5 SCC 623
The Court recognized the right to privacy under Article 21 and balanced it against RTI.
Personal information should not be disclosed unless larger public interest justifies it.
3. S. P. Gupta v. Union of India (1981) 2 SCC 87
Courts have the power to impose costs to prevent abuse of judicial and quasi-judicial processes.
4. State of Punjab v. Jalour Singh, AIR 1959 SC 140
Frivolous and vexatious petitions and complaints can be discouraged by imposition of costs.
5. B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India, AIR 1995 SC 1480
The Supreme Court emphasized that RTI Act is a tool for transparency, not harassment.
Summary of Legal Principles
| Aspect | Position of Gujarat HC & Case Law |
|---|---|
| Right to Information (RTI) | Not absolute; balanced with right to privacy |
| Disclosure of personal academic records | No disclosure without strong public interest justification |
| CIC’s powers | Cannot order disclosure that violates privacy or public interest principles |
| Cost imposition | Courts can impose costs to deter frivolous/vexatious petitions |
| Public interest | Must be genuine and demonstrable |
Practical Implications
Public authorities can refuse disclosure of personal academic records of individuals, including public figures, unless a valid public interest is shown.
RTI users should ensure requests serve genuine public interest and avoid fishing or harassment.
CIC orders can be challenged if they ignore privacy rights or lack jurisdiction.
Petitions and RTI appeals filed without merit can attract cost penalties.
Conclusion
The Gujarat High Court’s quashing of the CIC order underscores the necessity of balancing the right to information with the right to privacy and the requirement of genuine public interest. The imposition of costs signals judicial intolerance towards frivolous or vexatious petitions aimed at harassment or personal vendetta, reinforcing responsible use of RTI laws.
RELATED Blog
0 comments