RTI Act can't be used to satisfy someone's 'childish curiosity': Varsity to HC on PM degree row
Ahmedabad, Feb 9: The Gujarat University on Thursday told the High Court here the Right to Information Act can not be used for satisfying someone's "childish curiosity" as it defended its petition seeking quashing of an order under the transparency law to provide information on Prime Minister Narendra Modi's degree to Delhi CM Arvind Kejriwal.
Citing exceptions granted under the RTI Act for not complying with the seven-year-old order of the Central Information Commission (CIC), Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the university, argued that merely because someone is holding a public office, one can not seek his private information which is not connected with his public activity.
Mehta submitted that information about PM's degrees is "already in public domain" and the university had also placed the details on its website in the past, and claimed the 2005 Act is being used for settling scores and to make "childish jabs" against opponents.
However, Kejriwal's advocate claimed information about PM's degrees was not available in public domain as claimed by Mehta.
The advocate also referred to Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) searches at residences of former US President Donald Trump and his successor in the White House Joe Biden, and said no one is above the law.
After hearing arguments from both sides, Justice Biren Vaishnav reserved his order on the petition.
In July 2016, the Gujarat HC stayed the Central Information Commission's order asking the Ahmedabad-based university to provide information on the degree earned by PM Modi from the educational institute to Delhi Chief Minister Kejriwal.
In April 2016, then-CIC M Sridhar Acharyulu directed the Delhi University and the Gujarat University to provide information on degrees earned by Modi to the AAP leader.
CIC's order came a day after Kejriwal wrote to Acharyulu, saying he has no objection to government records about him being made public and wondered why the commission wanted to "hide" information on Modi's educational qualifications.
During the hearing on Thursday, Mehta claimed there was nothing to hide in the first place because information about PM's degrees is "already in public domain" and the university had also placed the information on its website on a particular date in the past.
Citing some past judgements of the Supreme Court and by other HCs about the exemptions granted under section 8 of the RTI Act, Mehta said one can not seek someone's personal information "just because you are curious about it".
"To be an RTI Activist has now become a profession. So many people who are not connected are curious about so many things...A stranger can not seek such information. Irresponsible childish curiosity can not become public interest. The RTI Act is being used for settling scores and to make childish jabs against opponents" he said.
As per section 8 of the RTI Act, a university can refuse to divulge information regarding its students to a third person because of the "fiduciary relationship", a relationship of trust between a trustee and a beneficiary.
"One can seek information if it falls in the category of larger public interest. But, you can not seek private information not related to my public activity. Just because the public is interested in it, it can not become public interest. Courts' interpretation has established that education qualification is personal information, whether it is of a politician or any other person," argued the Solicitor General.
Responding to Mehta, senior advocate Percy Kavina, appearing for Kejriwal, told the court that information about PM's degrees was not available in public domain as claimed by the Solicitor General.
"There is an interview of the PM with (journalist-turned-politician) Rajiv Shukla (in which Modi talks about his education). Otherwise, degrees are not available. This is an ambush hearing. Suddenly you come and say it is available on the internet," said Kavina.
He argued that when the Representation of the People Act mandates that politicians fighting elections must disclose their educational qualifications, exemptions about nondisclosure under section 8 of the landmark information legislation does not apply in those cases.
Kavina then gave the example of how the FBI searched residences of former US President Trump and his successor Biden.
"(Contrary to what Mehta said) this information about degrees has a direct connection with public activity and interest...This is how Trump's house and Biden's house are investigated by the FBI. This is how law works. Be you ever so high (in position), you are not above the law," said Kavina.
In his response, Mehta said even if the more than seven-decade-old election law mandates that candidates fighting polls need to furnish details about their educational qualifications at the time of submitting nomination papers, a third person can not file an RTI plea with the Returning Officer to seek that information.
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
K’taka HC judge whose controversial remarks triggered controversy expresses regret before open court
Bengaluru: Karnataka High Court judge, Justice V Srishananda, on Saturday expressed regret in open court after facing backlash over his controversial remarks in his recent court hearings, reported Bar and Bench.
Two purported video clips from Justice V Srishananda’s court hearing that show him making inappropriate comments went viral across social media platforms.
On Saturday, Justice Srishananda invited members of the Advocates Association, Bengaluru, and senior lawyers to his courtroom at 2:30 PM, where he read out a note expressing regret for inappropriate comments.
Quoting Advocates Association President Vivek Subba Reddy, Bar and Bench wrote, “He expressed regret for the comments and clarified that it was not his intention to offend any community or members of the Bar. He also requested the association to relay this message to all members of the Bar.”
Reddy further stated, “We also advised him to encourage young lawyers in the courtroom and refrain from making any irrelevant remarks during hearings.”
Another senior lawyer present during the session confirmed to the legal news portal that Justice Srishananda also addressed comments directed at a woman lawyer, who was seen in one of the videos being reprimanded by the judge. The judge Justice Srishananda clarified that his remarks were not intended to target her (woman lawyer) specifically, but rather pertained to the appellant she was representing. “He explained that his comment was meant to imply that the appellant seemed to know a lot about the other party,” said the lawyer.
In addition, Justice Srishananda assured those present that he would avoid making such comments in the future.
The controversy came to light on September 19, when a video clip from an August 28 Court hearing surfaced on social media, showing Justice Srishananda referring to a Muslim-majority sub-locality in Bengaluru’s Goripalya as "Pakistan." Hours later, another video from the same courtroom emerged, in which the judge was seen making a gender-insensitive remark.
Following outrage over the viral videos, a Supreme Court bench led by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, along with Justices Sanjiv Khanna, BR Gavai, Surya Kant, and Hrishikesh Roy, on September 20 took a suo motu cognizance and sought a report from the Karnataka High Court Registrar General in connection with the viral video.
