Gujarat High Court declares Modi's education records personal information

Published

The court dismissed Arvind Kejriwal's appeal and upheld Rs 25,000 in costs. For every RTI applicant, the bigger change is a 2023 law that deleted the 'larger public interest' proviso from Section 8(1)(j).

Original report

As of 6pm IST, 30 September 2026. Reports give the ruling date as 29 or 30 September.

Can an RTI applicant get the Prime Minister's degree details? The Gujarat High Court has said no. It held that education records are personal information exempt under the Right to Information Act, and dismissed Arvind Kejriwal's appeal seeking details of Narendra Modi's degree, LiveLaw and Bar & Bench reported.

The court found "no public interest much less larger public interest" in seeking the qualification, LiveLaw reported. It also upheld costs of Rs 25,000 on Kejriwal.

That ends one chapter of a dispute that began with a 2016 order. But for ordinary applicants, the bigger shift came earlier, from a 2023 data-protection law that rewrote the very clause officials use to refuse personal information.

The PM degree RTI case, from 2016 to now

The High Court's ruling sits at the end of a ten-year chain of decisions.

The court also said the CIC had no authority to treat Kejriwal's letter as an RTI plea and order disclosure. That point is narrow and procedural. The one about personal information reaches much further.

The court drew a hard line on motive

The judges were blunt about how the matter had been used. Bar & Bench reported the court's view that it "should not be treated as public platform to ventilate political vengeance".

Kejriwal had sought the degree details. His response to the ruling was not reported in the sources we reviewed, and no further appeal has been announced.

The ruling applies the RTI Act as the court read it. The Act itself, though, changed in 2025.

Section 8(1)(j) lost its 'larger public interest' proviso

Section 8(1)(j) is the RTI clause that exempts personal information. The Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act 2023, through its Section 44(3), rewrote it, according to RTI Wiki.

The key change: the 'larger public interest' proviso was deleted. That was the part of the clause that let public interest outweigh privacy. The amendment took effect in November 2025, when the DPDP Rules 2025 came into force. Sources differ on whether the date was 13 or 14 November.

The Gujarat judgment's language on "larger public interest" echoes the old test. Whether the DPDP change was argued in this case is not known.

If the proviso is gone, the obvious question is whether any public-interest route is left.

One override may survive, in Section 8(2)

According to RTI Wiki, a public-interest override survives in Section 8(2) of the RTI Act. Under it, the officer must record written reasons for any decision. This reading comes from a single source, so treat it with care until courts apply it.

If it holds, the path for anyone seeking personal information has moved. The argument that disclosure serves the public would now sit under Section 8(2), not inside Section 8(1)(j).

Put the two changes together and the picture for applicants becomes clearer.

What the ruling means for every RTI applicant

This is how the rules now look for someone filing an RTI request about a person, based on the ruling and the sources we reviewed.

For people who use RTI to scrutinise public figures, this narrows the road. For those worried about their own records being handed out, it is added protection. Both readings follow from the same text.

Outlets that covered the ruling put the weight in different places.

How the coverage split

One frame is about the law every applicant now faces. The other is about one politician's case.

What we don't know yet

What happens next

No further appeal or hearing date has been announced. The next marker for RTI users is how information officers apply the rewritten Section 8(1)(j) and Section 8(2) in their written orders.

This story was produced with AI assistance and reviewed, edited and verified by the reporter before publication.

Covered by 3 outlets across the spectrum: 0% left, 100% center, 0% right.

Who is covering this story

Sources

What an outlet bias classification means

Related stories