On Thursday, the Delhi High Court scheduled September 29 to hear appeals demanding the disclosure of information about Prime Minister Narendra Modi's bachelor's degree, following a request from Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing Delhi University, for an earlier hearing date.
A Division Bench consisting of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia was hearing appeals against a single-judge ruling that had overturned a Central Information Commission (CIC) order directing the disclosure of records related to Modi’s educational qualifications. At the beginning of the proceedings, counsel for the appellants requested a passover. Mehta suggested that the case be heard on a different day and asked for an early listing. The Bench, however, scheduled the matter for September 29.
The Solicitor General once more asked if the hearing could be scheduled for an earlier date, after which the Bench stated it had already reviewed its calendar. The appeals have been submitted by RTI activist Neeraj, Aam Aadmi Party leader Sanjay Singh, and advocate Mohd Irshad. The case stems from a single-judge ruling delivered on August 25, 2025, which overturned the CIC’s directive to disclose documents concerning Modi’s bachelor’s degree.
The single-judge bench had ruled that simply because an individual occupies a public office, it does not follow that all personal information about that individual is automatically open to public disclosure. The court further rejected the notion of any "implicit public interest" in the information requested. It noted that the Right to Information Act was enacted to enhance transparency in governmental operations, not to serve as "fodder for sensationalism'.
The case stemmed from an RTI application submitted by Neeraj. Acting on this request, the CIC on December 21, 2016, authorized the inspection of records of students who passed the BA examination in 1978, the year in which Modi is said to have completed the degree. A single judge delivered a consolidated judgment in six petitions, one of which was Delhi University’s challenge to the CIC’s directive.
Delhi University had requested that the CIC order be annulled, clarifying that it did not object to presenting the relevant records before the court. The single judge further observed that educational qualifications are not a statutory prerequisite for occupying a public office or performing official duties.
The court noted that the situation might have been different if specific educational qualifications had been mandated as a prerequisite for eligibility to the public office in question. The single judge also described the CIC’s stance as “thoroughly misconceived” while overturning its directive. The case is now scheduled to be heard by the Division Bench on September 29, when the appeals contesting the single judge’s ruling will be taken up for further hearing.
