Gujarat High Court upholds dismissal of Kejriwal appeal in Modi degree case

The Gujarat High Court has rejected Arvind Kejriwal’s appeal against an earlier ruling that quashed a Central Information Commission directive on disclosure of Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s academic degree. The court also upheld a ₹25,000 cost imposed on the AAP leader.
The Gujarat High Court has dismissed Arvind Kejriwal’s appeal against a ruling that set aside a directive requiring Gujarat University to disclose Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s academic degree. A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Sunita Agarwal and Justice D.N. Ray found no grounds to interfere with the single judge’s decision.
The Bench also upheld the ₹25,000 cost imposed on Kejriwal. The single judge had quashed a 2016 directive of the Central Information Commission and criticised Kejriwal’s use of the Right to Information provisions. The order said his approach had been casual.
During the appeal, Kejriwal’s counsel, Abhishek Manu Singhvi, challenged the basis for imposing the cost. He argued that Kejriwal had not persisted in seeking Modi’s degree and that the commission had initiated proceedings on the basis of a letter rather than a formal application. Singhvi also argued that if the degree was available online, as Gujarat University had submitted, the issue should fall within the RTI Act and the cause of action should end.
The university’s position was that Kejriwal had pursued the matter relentlessly and had held press conferences that defamed the institution. The dispute began in 2016, when Kejriwal wrote to the CIC asking that Modi’s degree be made public. The then information commissioner directed Delhi University and Gujarat University to provide information about Modi’s degrees.
Gujarat University challenged that direction in the High Court. The university had said Modi completed a master’s degree in political science in 1983 with 62.3 per cent as an external student, and later posted the degree on its website. The High Court’s latest order leaves the earlier ruling and cost in place.
This independently written report is based on information supplied by the named publisher. Vertrix News has not independently verified the source report.