New Delhi, April 28: The Delhi High Court on Monday allowed Delhi University an additional two weeks to submit its objections regarding the delay in filing appeals linked to the PM degree appeal case involving Prime Minister Narendra Modi.
A division bench comprising Chief Justice DK Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia recorded that the university’s counsel sought more time to respond to an application seeking condonation of delay.
Court Proceedings and Timeline
During the hearing, the bench noted that the respondent would file objections within the extended period, while the appellants would submit their replies thereafter. The matter has now been scheduled for further hearing on August 20.
Earlier, on February 10, the court had already granted three weeks to the university for the same purpose. However, the objections were not filed within that timeframe, prompting the request for additional time.
Counsel representing the appellants pointed out the delay, stating that despite the court’s earlier direction, the response had not been submitted even after more than two months. In contrast, the university’s legal representative assured the bench that the objections would be filed within the newly granted period.
Arguments Presented Before the Court
The appellants urged the court to condone the delay in filing appeals, arguing that procedural timelines should not obstruct the adjudication of substantive issues in the PM degree appeal case.
Appearing for the university, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta downplayed the controversy, stating that the matter lacked merit and was being amplified unnecessarily.
On the other side, legal representatives for the appellants emphasized the importance of timely compliance with court directions, highlighting that delays undermine the judicial process.
Background of the Dispute
The ongoing litigation stems from appeals challenging an earlier ruling by a single judge of the High Court, which had set aside an order of the Central Information Commission (CIC). The CIC had directed disclosure of details related to the Prime Minister’s undergraduate degree.
The appeals have been filed by RTI activist Neeraj, Sanjay Singh, and advocate Mohd Irshad, who have questioned the decision to withhold the information.
Earlier High Court Ruling
In its August 25, 2025 judgment, the single judge had ruled that holding a public office does not automatically make all personal information subject to public disclosure. The court observed that there was no implicit public interest in revealing such academic details under the Right to Information framework.
The judgment emphasized that the Right to Information Act is intended to promote transparency in governance rather than to fuel unnecessary controversy. It further clarified that educational qualifications are not a statutory requirement for holding public office, and therefore do not warrant mandatory disclosure.
CIC Order and RTI Application
The case originated from a 2016 RTI application filed by Neeraj, seeking access to records of students who passed the Bachelor of Arts examination in 1978—the same year the Prime Minister is reported to have graduated.
On December 21, 2016, the CIC permitted inspection of relevant university records. This directive was later challenged by Delhi University, leading to prolonged legal proceedings.
The university had argued that while it had no objection to presenting records before the court, public disclosure raised concerns about privacy and misuse of information.
Related Observations by the Court
In its earlier ruling, the High Court had also addressed a similar directive involving academic records of former Union minister Smriti Irani. The court set aside the CIC’s order in that case as well, reinforcing the principle that personal educational details do not automatically fall within the ambit of public disclosure.
The judge had described the CIC’s reasoning as flawed, noting that transparency laws should not be interpreted in a manner that compromises individual privacy without sufficient public interest.
Legal and Public Significance
The PM degree appeal case raises broader questions about the balance between transparency and privacy in public life. While RTI activists argue that disclosure enhances accountability, legal experts caution against expanding the scope of the law beyond its intended purpose.
The outcome of the case could set an important precedent regarding the extent to which personal information of public officials can be accessed under the RTI Act.
Next Steps
With the High Court granting additional time, the focus now shifts to Delhi University’s forthcoming objections and the appellants’ response. The next hearing in August is expected to provide further clarity on the legal issues involved.
As the PM degree appeal case progresses, it continues to draw attention from legal circles, political observers, and transparency advocates, reflecting its significance in shaping the interpretation of information rights in India.