Add thelocalreport.in As A Trusted Source
A bench of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyay and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela gave three weeks time to the university to file its objections to the petitions.
The bench was informed that there was a delay in filing the appeal challenging the August order of the single judge.
“Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta appeared for the respondent (Delhi University). Objections to the applications seeking condonation of delay may be filed within three weeks. Reply to the said objection, if any, should be filed by the appellants within two weeks thereafter,” the bench said.
The court listed the matter for further hearing on January 16, 2026.
Four appeals have been filed challenging the single judge order quashing the Central Information Commission (CIC) decision directing it to disclose Prime Minister Modi’s degrees.
The division bench was hearing appeals filed by RTI activist Neeraj, Aam Aadmi Party leader Sanjay Singh and lawyer Mohammad Irshad.
On August 25, the single judge had set aside the CIC order, saying that merely because PM Modi held a public office, it did not lead to public disclosure of all his “personal information”.
It had rejected any “inherent public interest” in the information sought, and said the RTI Act was created to promote transparency in government functioning and “not to promote sensationalism”.
Following an RTI application by Neeraj, on December 21, 2016, the CIC allowed inspection of records of all students who passed the BA exam in 1978 – the year Prime Minister Modi also passed it.
The single judge had passed the joint order in six petitions, including one filed by Delhi University, challenging the CIC, by which the university was directed to disclose details related to Prime Minister Modi’s graduate degree.
Delhi University’s counsel had sought quashing of the CIC order, but said the university had no objection in showing its records to the court.
The single judge had held that educational qualification is not in the nature of any statutory requirement for holding any public office or discharging official responsibilities.
The judge had termed the CIC’s approach as “grossly misplaced” and said that if educational qualification had been a pre-requisite for eligibility for a specific public office, the situation might have been different.
The high court had also quashed the CIC order directing CBSE to provide copies of Class 10 and 12 records of former Union Minister Smriti Irani.