Delhi University in New Delhi on Monday said that the purpose of RTI was not to satisfy the curiosity of third parties as it challenged the Central Information Commission’s order disclosing information about Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s degree.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing before Delhi High Court Justice Sachin Datta, said that students’ details are kept by a university in a “fiduciary capacity” and cannot be shared with strangers as the law provides an exception to it .

“Section 6 provides that information must be provided, that is the purpose. However, the RTI law is not designed to satisfy a person’s curiosity,” he said.

The Right to Information Act cannot be abused or misused by mandating disclosure of information that has nothing to do with transparency and accountability in the functioning of public authorities, Mehta argued.

Following an RTI plea by activist Neeraj, the Central Information Commission on December 21, 2016 allowed inspection of the records of all students who had passed the BA exam in 1978, the year Prime Minister Modi also cleared it.

The statement of claim sought information about the students who took the exam in 1978.

However, the CIC order was stayed by the Supreme Court on January 23, 2017.

Mehta said on Monday: “I can go to my university and ask them to give me my degree, mark sheet or papers if the rules allow it. But 8 applies to third parties.”

Calling the CIC order a violation of existing law, he said “indiscriminate and impractical” demands under the RTI Act for disclosure of “any and all” information would be counterproductive and negatively impact the efficiency of the administration.

“He wants everyone’s information about the year 1978. Someone can come and say 1979, someone 1964. This university was founded in 1922,” Mehta said.

DU had said that the CIC order had “far-reaching adverse consequences” for the petitioner and all universities in the country that hold in trust millions of students’ degrees.

Challenging the CIC order, DU said the RTI authority’s order was “arbitrary” and “legally untenable” as the information sought to be disclosed was “personal information of third parties”.

DU’s petition described it as “totally unlawful” for the CIC to have directed him to disclose such information which was available to him in a fiduciary capacity.

It was argued that no finding had been made that an urgent need or overriding public interest would justify disclosing this information.

The RTI law had been reduced to a “joke” as queries asked for records of all students who passed the BA exam in 1978, including the Prime Minister.

The CIC, in its order, directed DU to allow inspection and rejected its information officer’s argument that it was personal data of third parties, saying the data was “neither authorized nor lawful”.

The university has been directed to “facilitate inspection” of the register which contains complete information about the results of all students who passed the BA examination in 1978, along with their matriculation number, names of students, names of fathers and the grades achieved are saved, and a … a certified copy of the extract, free of charge.

The matter is scheduled to be heard later in January.

This article was generated from an automated news agency feed without any modifications to the text.