The Delhi High Court dismissed petitions challenging the protection of student academic records, ruling that degree, marks, and related academic information held by the University and examining bodies are personal information protected under Sections 8(1)(e) and 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. Orders directing disclosure of such information to third parties without demonstrable public interest were set aside.
The petitioners, University of Delhi and CBSE, challenged several RTI orders and penalties related to requests by third parties, including political figures and individuals, seeking disclosure of the names, degrees, examination marks, and related documents of students, including prominent individuals.
The challenge extended to orders directing the universities to disclose this information, on the ground that it is part of public records and concern public interest in matters such as verifying official claims of educational qualifications for public office. It also contested the imposition of maximum penalties on Public Information Officers (PIOs) for rejecting or returning RTI applications citing procedural errors concerning fee payment instruments.
The fundamental legal questions revolved around (i) whether academic records and degrees are “personal information” exempt from disclosure under RTI; (ii) whether the University-examinee relationship constitutes a fiduciary relationship creating confidentiality obligations; and (iii) the scope and application of the “public interest” override for exempted information.
The case originated from Central Information Commission (CIC) orders that directed disclosure on grounds that academic information, being registered and publicly declared (e.g., through convocation, website publication), is in the public domain. In some cases, PIOs had rejected or returned RTI applications citing invalid fee instruments, and CIC had imposed penalties on them citing wilful denial. The petitioners challenged these orders before the Delhi High Court.
The RTI applicants had sought data on student results, admission forms, degree certificates, and verification procedures. The petitioners contended that such data is confidential and protected due to the fiduciary and confidential nature of their relationship with students; additionally, disclosure without consent or overriding public interest would violate statutory protections and constitutional privacy rights. They also contented that academic records and degree details are not freely disclosed to third parties under RTI unless overriding public interest is established.
The Bench comprising Justice Sachin Datta relied on several Supreme Court precedents defining fiduciary relationship as involving trust, confidence, and duty to act in the best interest of beneficiary. It recognised University-student relationship as fiduciary with obligations of confidentiality over personal/academic data.
In result, academic records, marks, and degrees were held to constitute personal data protected under Sections 8(1)(e) and 8(1)(j) of RTI, and disclosure was allowed only if a clear “larger public interest” is demonstrated outweighing privacy interests. The Court categorically held that mere public curiosity or interest is insufficient for disclosure, and disclosure of academic credentials of deceased individuals or those not holding office with educational criteria was disallowed.
Additionally, the procedural mechanism of returning deficient RTI requests for rectification was held to be a reasonable institutional practice rather than mala fide conduct. Consequently, penalties imposed on PIOs for procedural errors without proof of deliberate obstruction were quashed.
Cases relied on:
- Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court of India v. Subhash Chandra Agarwal,
(2020) 5 SCC 481
- Central Board of Secondary Education and Another v. Aditya Bandopadhyay and Others, (2011) 8 SCC 497
- Kerala Public Service Commission and Others v. State Information Commission and Another, (2016) 3 SCC 417
- Institute of Chartered Accountants of India v. Shaunak H. Satya and Others, (2011) 8 SCC 781
- RBI v. Jayantilal N. Mistry, (2016) 3 SCC 525
- Gujarat University v. M. Sridhar Acharyulu (Madabhushi Sridhar) and Others, 2023 SCC OnLine Guj 4902
- S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India, (2017) 10 SCC 1
- Bihar Public Service Commission v. Saiyed Hussain Abbas Rizwi 2012 (13) SCC 61
- Onkar Dattatray Kalmankar v. Public Information Officer and Registrar and Others, 2024 SCC OnLine Bom 3513
- Central Board of Secondary Education v. Anil Kumar Kathpal
- Ehtesham Qutubuddin Siddique vs. CPIO, Department of Personnel and Training, 2024 SCC OnLine Del 1559
- Mairembam Prithviraj v. Pukhrem Sharat Chandra Singh, (2017) 2 SCC 487
Presence:
for petitioners in W.P.(C) 600/2017, W.P.(C) 1051/2017, W.P.(C) 1077/2017, W.P.(C) 1091/2017 and W.P.(C) 1095/2017: Mr. Tushar Mehta, Solicitor General (SG) along with Mr. Anil Soni, Sr. Advocate and Mr. Rajat Nair, Mr. Dhruv Pande, Mr. Devvrat Yadav, Ms. Akshaja Singh and Mr. Alok Dubey, Advocates
for R-1 in W.P.(C) 600/2017: Mr. Sanjay Hegde, Sr. Advocate along with Mr. Rishikesh Kumar, Ms. Sheenu Priya and Mr. Aman Kumar, Advocates
for R-1 in W.P.(C) 1077/2017: Mr. Rahul Mehra, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Shadan Farasat, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Rishikesh Kumar, Mr. Chaitanya Gosain, Mr. Pranny Dhawan and Ms. Sheenu Priya, Advocates
for R-1 in W.P.(C) 1095/2017: Mr. Rahul Mehra, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Rishikesh Kumar, Mr. Chaitanya Gosain and Ms. Sheenu Priya, Advocates
for R-1 in W.P.(C) 600/2017, W.P.(C) 1077/2017, W.P.(C) 1095/2017: Ms. Sheenu Priya, Advocate
for petitioner in W.P.(C) 13568/2023: Mr. Shadan Farasat, Sr. Advocate along with Mr. Rishikesh Kumar, Mr. Pranav Dhawan and Ms. Sheenu Priya, Adv.
for Intervenors in W.P.(C) 600/2017: Mr. Trideep Pias, Sr. Advocate along with Ms. Seema Misra, Advocate