Gujarat HC Fines Arvind Kejwiral Rs. 25K For “Making Mockery Of RTI Act” In The Following Case

Gujarat HC has imposed a fine of Rs. 25000 on the CM of Delhi, Arvind Kejriwal. The state HC did the same while expressing that Kejriwal is fined for “making a mockery of the very intent and purpose of the RTI Act.” He is asked to deposit the amount within four weeks to Gujarat State Legal Service Authority.

Arvind Kejriwal asked for details already available in the public domain

In 2016, Kejriwal filed an RTI asking for the graduate and post-graduate degrees of the Prime Minister. The then Central Information Commission (CIC) M Sridhar Acharyulu ordered the Gujrat University, Delhi University, and Prime Minister’s Office (PMO) to produce the information for the public.

The Gujarat University quickly posted PM Modi’s degree on its website, but at the same time, it challenged the Information Commission’s decision on moral grounds. A bachelor’s degree in Arts from Delhi University and a Master’s degree in Political Science from Gujarat University was also issued by BJP.

Mr. Kejriwal was still not satisfied with all this; he stated that the documents had “glaring discrepancies.”

The Gujarat court has squashed the orders of CIC and stated that “The insistence of Arvind Kejriwal to get the educational degree of Prime Minister Narendra Modi through RTI route, when the same is already available in the public domain, creates doubt on Kejriwal’s bonafide and motive. Arvind Kejriwal doubtlessly used an appeal against him to kickstart and trigger a controversy not falling within the purview of the RTI Act for the objects and purpose this court need not go into.”

Also Read: Govt Keeping Eye on Covid Situation, Prepared to Face Any Eventuality: Delhi CM Kejriwal

Gujarat HC’s verdict on the case

The Gujarat High Court in its order said, “This court holds that the educational documents including degrees fall within the ambit of personal information of a citizen, disclosure of which is exempted under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. Further, the said information is held by the Universities and Boards in a fiduciary capacity on behalf of their students which is again exempted under Section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act.”

The order further noted, “The CIC expressly noted that the information about educational degrees of Narendra Modi is already in the public domain and the same is merely a matter of curiosity in the public domain which cannot be equated with ‘public interest’ because only if the public is interested in perusing certain information the same would not ipso facto fall within the legal ambit of ‘public interest’ as contemplated under section 8(e) and (j) of the RTI Act.”

“In the opinion of this court, once the Commission came to the finding that the information sought was neither relatable to accountability and transparency in public functions discharged by Narendra Modi nor there was any larger public interest in disclosure of the said information, as in, the disclosure sought for was merely something which was of ‘interest to the public’ and a matter of political curiosity and not something which was in the public interest, then the Commission ought to have strictly applied the exemptions contemplated under section 8(e) and (j) and ought to have refused disclosure of the said information,” the court said.

It added, “Instead the Commission has rendered an omnibus finding that educational qualification-related information about public authorities, public servants or political leaders occupying the constitutional positions is not hit by an exception under Section 8 of the RTI Act. This Court fails to comprehend the justification or the legal foundation based on which the Commission has arrived at the said finding. The said decision of the CIC, in the opinion of the court, is contrary to the legal position and is therefore set aside. This court holds that in absence of any larger public interest, which is neither pleaded nor raised, the educational degrees of Narendra Modi are exempted from disclosure under the provisions of section 8(1)(e) and (j) of the RTI Act.”