Full Breakdown
Gujarat High Court Dismisses Arvind Kejriwal’s Appeal Over PM Modi’s Degree Disclosure, Upholds INR25,000 Cost
By Drooid · · How we work
Court Dismisses Appeal and Upholds Cost
On September 29, 2026, a division bench of the Gujarat High Court—Chief Justice Sunita Agarwal and Justice D.N. Ray—rejected AAP convenor Arvind Kejriwal’s challenge to the earlier order that set aside a 2016 Central Information Commission (CIC) directive demanding that Gujarat University disclose Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s academic degree. The bench also confirmed the INR25,000 cost imposed on Kejriwal by a single-judge bench, finding no error in the prior judgment.
Background & Context
The dispute began in April 2016 when Kejriwal wrote to the CIC requesting Modi’s educational qualifications. The CIC, then headed by M. Sridhar Acharyulu, directed Delhi University and Gujarat University to provide the information. Gujarat University objected, calling the request “irresponsible childish curiosity.”
Three months later, the Gujarat High Court stayed the CIC order after the university’s challenge. In May 2016, Vice-Chancellor M.N. Patel posted Modi’s MA in Political Science (completed in 1983 with 62.3 %) on the university’s website.
A single-judge bench quashed the CIC directive on March 31, 2023, labeling the commission’s action “judicial activism” and imposing the INR25,000 cost on Kejriwal for “casual” use of the RTI process. Kejriwal appealed, leading to the September 2026 hearing.
Data & Statistics
- Cost imposed on Kejriwal: INR25,000 (2023 order and 2026 affirmation)
- Modi’s MA completion year: 1983
- Modi’s MA percentage: 62.3 %
- Key dates: April 28 2016 (RTI request); March 31 2023 (single-judge order); September 29 2026 (division-bench dismissal)
Official Statements & Responses
The bench observed that statutory authorities and courts should not be used for political vengeance, noting that a public office holder’s educational records do not automatically become a matter of public interest. It said Kejriwal’s written submissions “spoke for themselves,” indicating misuse of the RTI process.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing Gujarat University, argued that Kejriwal’s litigation sought to defame the institution and urged retention of the cost order to deter future RTI misuse.
Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Kejriwal’s counsel, contended that the CIC had acted suo motu by naming Kejriwal a respondent without a formal RTI application and that the request would fall within the RTI framework if the degree were already online.
Criticism & Opposition
Gujarat University maintained that the request represented “irresponsible childish curiosity” and that no larger public interest justified disclosure of Modi’s records. The university’s challenge focused on the procedural propriety of the CIC’s directive, asserting that the commission exceeded its jurisdiction.
Conflicting Reports & Gaps
The university initially told the single-judge bench that Modi’s degree was already available online, a point later contested by Kejriwal’s lawyers, who said the document had never been uploaded. The division bench rejected this contention, highlighting a factual gap regarding the degree’s online availability at the time of the appeal.
The Gujarat High Court’s decision closes the high-court phase of a legal battle that began with a 2016 RTI request and hinged on the procedural limits of the CIC and privacy protections for personal educational records under the RTI Act.