Delhi High Court Defends Personal Privacy in RTI Ruling

The Delhi High Court has ruled that the Right to Information Act is designed to ensure government transparency, not indulge sensationalism, by protecting personal academic records from public disclosure unless a public interest is demonstrated, emphasizing privacy and discretion even for public figures like Prime Minister Modi.

The Delhi High Court underscored the intention of the Right to Information (RTI) Act on Monday, stating it should foster transparency without succumbing to sensationalism. Justice Sachin Datta indicated that seemingly harmless information could trigger excessive demands driven by curiosity or sensationalism rather than genuine public interest.

In a case involving Prime Minister Narendra Modi's educational documents, the court declared marksheets and degrees as personal information, highlighting that a public position doesn't automatically warrant public disclosure of personal data. This decision nullified a 2016 Central Information Commission (CIC) order mandating Delhi University to release its 1978 BA degree records.

The Court dismissed the notion that over 20-year-old records must be unveiled under Section 8(3) of the RTI Act. It upheld exemptions for personal data and fiduciary relationships even past two decades. A similar stance was taken against a CIC order instructing the Central Board of Secondary Education to disclose Union Minister Smriti Irani's exam history.

Reiterating privacy standards, the Court recognized the fiduciary bond between academic bodies and students, noting that sensitive information is shared only with the student involved unless an overarching public interest demands otherwise.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, arguing for Delhi University, warned that unchecked disclosures could spur politically fueled RTI requests, asserting that records could be presented in court, but public access would dent the Act's confidentiality ethos.

Stemming from RTI requests leading to 2016 CIC orders, the case saw the High Court asserting that academic annals, even those of public figures, remain guarded under legal provisions—clarifying that such disclosures violate the statute's privacy protections. (ANI)

(With inputs from agencies.)