Arvind Kejriwal gets setback from Gujarat HC:Division bench rejects appeal seeking public disclosure of PM Modi’s degree

A Gujarat High Court single-judge bench had imposed a cost of ₹25,000 on Arvind Kejriwal in a case concerning the disclosure of Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s degree. Kejriwal subsequently filed a review petition challenging the single judge’s order, but it was dismissed. He then filed an appeal against the order before a division bench of the Gujarat High Court. The bench had reserved its verdict, which was pronounced today, rejecting Kejriwal’s appeal. It is worth mentioning that the Central Information Commission (CIC) had directed Gujarat University to disclose information related to the Prime Minister’s degree. The university challenged the CIC’s order before the High Court, where Arvind Kejriwal was made a party to the case. Court says university cannot disclose private information without due process A hearing was held in the Gujarat High Court on September 16, 2026. During the proceedings, the court observed that a university cannot disclose private information without following due process. The court also remarked that the Central Information Commission (CIC) should have exercised greater caution while dealing with the matter. If Kejriwal was not interested in PM’s degree, he would not have filed review: Tushar Mehta Solicitor General Tushar Mehta argued before the High Court that the issue was whether a student’s degree could be disclosed under the Right to Information Act. He said that universities issue degrees to lakhs of students and argued that since the Prime Minister holds a constitutional office, the university should have no objection to disclosing his degree. Mehta also pointed out that the single judge had noted that the university had already placed the degree in the public domain. He argued that if institutions receive applications seeking disclosure of degrees in this manner, they could be overwhelmed by such requests. Mehta said Kejriwal has maintained that he did not seek the degree, but alleged that creating a situation to make the degree public was done with an ulterior motive. Mehta further argued that if Kejriwal was genuinely not interested in the Prime Minister’s degree after the single judge’s order, he would not have filed a review petition. Information cannot be sought merely out of curiosity The Solicitor General argued that Arvind Kejriwal and Sanjay Singh had held a press conference and allegedly defamed Gujarat University. The university subsequently filed a criminal defamation complaint against the two before a magistrate’s court. He said the RTI Act provides exemptions under Section 8 for certain categories of information. The key question, he argued, was whether disclosure of the information served a larger public interest. Student records held by a university constitute private information, and there are judicial precedents recognising such privacy protections. The Solicitor General said the relationship between a university and its students is based on confidentiality and trust. He added that disclosure could be justified in cases involving a genuine public-interest question, such as doubts over whether a person holding a particular post possesses the required qualification. However, information cannot be sought merely out of curiosity. Court says CIC should have exercised caution in the case The Solicitor General told the court that the Chief Information Officer had asked Kejriwal whether information relating to his degree should be provided, to which Kejriwal allegedly responded that the Prime Minister’s degree should also be provided. The CIC subsequently directed the university to disclose the degree. The Solicitor General argued that neither the Prime Minister nor the university had been made a party to the proceedings concerning the information. The court observed that the CIC should have exercised greater caution while dealing with the matter. Court warns against misuse of RTI to seek private information The court observed that activists often seek large amounts of private information and said the CIC should have exercised greater caution in this case. It noted that such circumstances could lead to the misuse of the RTI Act. The court said an individual can choose to disclose their personal information themselves, but a university cannot disclose private information without following due process. The Solicitor General argued that the issue was primarily about the right to privacy. He also pointed out that there is no requirement for a degree to hold the post of Prime Minister. Third parties cannot seek private student records Referring to a previous court judgment, the Solicitor General said that if a student seeks their own answer sheet, the examination body can provide it, but the same information cannot be given to a third party. In other words, a person can seek information relating to themselves, but a third party cannot seek such private records. Public interest must justify disclosure of private information The court noted that examination bodies hold students’ information based on a relationship of trust. Details such as marks, physical and mental condition, handwriting and grades are considered private information. The court said it must be examined whether there is a larger public interest that justifies an exemption to privacy protections. It questioned whether seeking someone’s degree merely out of curiosity amounts to a matter of public interest. The Solicitor General argued that seeking the degree of a government office-holder could constitute a public-interest issue if the qualification is mandatory for holding that particular post.