The Gujarat High Court on Tuesday, 29 September dismissed Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) national convenor Arvind Kejriwal's appeal challenging a lower court order that had quashed a Central Information Commission (CIC) direction seeking disclosure of Prime Minister Narendra Modi's academic degree from Gujarat University. The division bench also upheld a ₹25,000 cost imposed on Kejriwal, bringing a decade-long legal battle to a close.

What the Court Ruled

A division bench comprising Chief Justice Sunita Agarwal and Justice D N Ray found no grounds to interfere with the 31 March 2023 order of the single judge. The bench stated: 'In the totality of facts and circumstances of the present case, no error on any of the submissions of the appellant hearing can be found in the judgment impugned. The appeal stands dismissed accordingly with no further order as to cost.'

The court reserved its verdict after completing arguments on 25 September, making Tuesday's order the final word from the division bench. No additional costs were imposed beyond the existing ₹25,000 penalty.

Background: A Dispute Stretching Back to 2016

The controversy traces its origins to 2016, when Kejriwal wrote to the CIC seeking disclosure of PM Modi's educational qualifications and publicly questioned why the information was being 'hidden.' In April 2016, then CIC M Sridhar Acharyulu directed both Delhi University and Gujarat University to furnish details of the degrees obtained by PM Modi.

Gujarat University promptly challenged the CIC direction before the High Court, which stayed it. The university argued that an individual's 'irresponsible childish curiosity' could not be treated as public interest under the Right to Information (RTI) Act. In 2016, then vice-chancellor M N Patel had stated that PM Modi completed an MA in Political Science in 1983. The university also placed the degree on its website while the legal challenge was pending.

The Single Judge's Order and Its Challenge

In March 2023, a single judge allowed Gujarat University's petition, quashed the CIC's 2016 direction, criticised the commission for venturing into 'judicial activism', and imposed ₹25,000 in costs on Kejriwal — observing that the RTI provisions had been 'approached casually and had been misused.'

Kejriwal subsequently approached the division bench. His counsel, senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, challenged the cost, arguing that Kejriwal had not 'persisted' in seeking PM Modi's degree as the single judge had observed, and that the CIC had initiated proceedings suo motu — making Kejriwal a respondent on the basis of a letter, not a formal RTI application.

Arguments on Both Sides

Singhvi further contended that since Gujarat University had made the degree available online, there was no surviving cause of action under the RTI Act. Appearing for Gujarat University, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta opposed the appeal, arguing that Kejriwal had 'pursued the matter relentlessly' and had held press conferences that, according to the university, defamed the institution.

Mehta submitted that costs ought to be imposed to discourage misuse of the RTI Act and to prevent government officials from spending productive working hours handling requests that did not serve the Act's purpose. Notably, Kejriwal's lawyers had earlier argued in a review petition before the single judge that the degree had never actually been uploaded to the university's website — a plea the court rejected.

What This Means Going Forward

Tuesday's division bench order closes the appellate chapter on this dispute, confirming both the quashing of the original CIC direction and the financial penalty on Kejriwal. Critics argue the ruling narrows the scope of RTI-based scrutiny of public figures' credentials, while supporters of the verdict contend it safeguards institutions from proceedings driven by political motivation rather than genuine public interest. Any further challenge by Kejriwal would require approaching the Supreme Court.