New Delhi, Aug. 25 -- The Delhi High Court on Monday set aside a CIC order directing disclosure of details related to Prime Minister Narendra Modi's bachelor's degree, saying only because he was holding a public office, it did not render all his "personal information" to public disclosure.

Justice Sachin Datta ruled out any "implicit public interest" in the information sought, and said that the RTI Act was enacted to promote transparency in government functioning and "not to provide fodder for sensationalism".

Following an RTI application by one Neeraj, the CIC on December 21, 2016, allowed inspection of records of all students who cleared

the BA exam in 1978 -- the year Prime Minister Modi also passed it.

"Something which is of interest to the public" is quite different from "something which is in the public interest," the judge said.

The judge opined the educational qualifications were not in the nature of any statutory requirement for holding any public office, or discharging official responsibilities.

The situation might have been different, had educational qualifications been a pre-requisite for eligibility to a specific public office,

the judge said, calling the CIC's approach "thoroughly misconceived".

"The mark sheets/results/degree, certificate/academic records of any individual, even if that individual is a holder of public office, are in the nature of personal information. The fact that a person holds a public office does not, per se, render all personal information subject to public disclosure," the order said.

Observing things would be different if a particular educational qualification was a criteria or prerequisite for holding a public office or any post, the bench said in the present case "no public interest is implicit in the disclosure of the information as sought vide RTI application".

The fact that the information sought was of a public figure did not "extinguish privacy/confidentiality

rights over personal data", unconnected with public duties, the court added.

"This court cannot be oblivious to the reality that what may superficially appear to be an innocuous or isolated disclosure could open the floodgates of indiscriminate demands, motivated by idle curiosity or sensationalism, rather than any objective 'public interest' consideration," the order said.

Published by HT Digital Content Services with permission from Millennium Post.