Gujarat High Court: Upholds Kejriwal Modi Degree Costs, ₹25,000 Penalty

• The Gujarat High Court dismissed Arvind Kejriwal's appeal concerning information on Prime Minister Narendra Modi's academic degrees.
• The court upheld a ₹25,000 cost imposed on Kejriwal by a single judge in 2023.
• The original 2023 ruling had quashed a Central Information Commission (CIC) directive for Gujarat University to disclose the degree information.
• The Division Bench found no error in the single judge's observation that the RTI process was being abused for political reasons.
• Gujarat University had argued that the RTI mechanism should not be used merely to satisfy 'curiosity' and consume public resources.

The court's stance underscores a judicial reluctance to permit the Right to Information mechanism to be exploited for mere curiosity or political ends, particularly when it consumes public resources.

The Gujarat High Court has dismissed an appeal filed by Aam Aadmi Party convenor Arvind Kejriwal, thereby affirming a previous single-judge ruling that had imposed a ₹25,000 cost on him. This decision leaves intact the financial penalty and reinforces the earlier judgment which quashed a directive from the Central Information Commission (CIC) that sought the disclosure of information concerning Prime Minister Narendra Modi's academic degrees from Gujarat University.

A Division Bench, comprising Chief Justice Sunita Agarwal and Justice D.N. Ray, reviewed the appeal and found no error in the judgment delivered by the single judge in 2023. The bench's ruling effectively concludes Kejriwal's challenge against the original order, which had also set aside the CIC's instruction to Gujarat University to release the degree-related details. The court's stance underscores a judicial reluctance to permit the Right to Information mechanism to be exploited for mere curiosity or political ends, particularly when it consumes public resources.

The controversy originated from a 2016 order issued by the Central Information Commission, which had directed Gujarat University to provide information regarding degrees held by Prime Minister Narendra Modi. Gujarat University subsequently challenged this directive before the High Court. On March 31, 2023, Justice Biren Vaishnav, who was then sitting as a single judge, ruled in favor of the University, setting aside the CIC's disclosure order.

In that 2023 judgment, the single judge also imposed the ₹25,000 cost on Arvind Kejriwal. The rationale for this penalty stemmed from Kejriwal's continued pursuit of the issue, despite the University presenting its Office Register as evidence of the degree's conferment. The court noted that this contemporaneous university record, reflecting the conferment, was deemed sufficient for the matter under consideration. Kejriwal's subsequent petition to review this judgment, which argued that only an office register and not the actual degree was produced, was also rejected.

During the appeal before the Division Bench, Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, representing Arvind Kejriwal, primarily contested the justification for the ₹25,000 cost. Singhvi argued that the single judge had proceeded on an incorrect premise, suggesting Kejriwal had 'persisted' with the proceedings, when, according to the appellant, he had not filed any reply for nearly three years. He also questioned the distinction drawn between the physical degree certificate and the university's internal record of its conferment.

Conversely, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for Gujarat University and the authorities, opposed Kejriwal's challenge. The University's position was that the Right to Information mechanism should not be invoked merely to satisfy 'curiosity,' and that prolonged proceedings on such matters would unduly consume the time and resources of public authorities. The single judge had previously characterized the persistent pursuit of the information as an 'abuse of the process of the RTI machinery,' a finding that the appellate bench found no reason to overturn, emphasizing that the proceedings appeared to be diverted towards politicizing the matter.

The Gujarat High Court's decision to uphold the ₹25,000 cost against Arvind Kejriwal sends a clear signal regarding the appropriate use of the Right to Information Act in India. This ruling reinforces the judiciary's stance on the limits of RTI requests, particularly when perceived as an 'abuse of process' or driven by 'curiosity' rather than genuine public interest. The Division Bench's affirmation of the single judge's observations highlights a judicial concern over the potential for RTI applications to be used for purposes other than their intended public good.

This outcome serves as a significant precedent for future RTI applications, especially those that might be viewed as politically motivated or frivolous. Lawyers advising clients on RTI matters should note the court's willingness to impose significant costs for such applications, suggesting a stricter interpretation of the 'public interest' threshold and a potential deterrent against the misuse of the RTI machinery.

This ruling reinforces the judiciary's stance on the limits of Right to Information (RTI) requests, particularly when perceived as an 'abuse of process' or driven by 'curiosity' rather than genuine public interest. Lawyers advising clients on RTI matters should note the court's willingness to impose significant costs for such applications, serving as a precedent for potential penalties in similar politically charged or frivolous information disclosure cases.

Source: Reporting based on legal news coverage.