Delhi High Court Affirms Privacy over Academic Records: Personal Educational Data Exempt from RTI under Section 8(1)(j)

Introduction

On 25 August 2025, the Delhi High Court delivered a cluster judgment in University of Delhi v. Neeraj & Connected matters (2025 DHC 7273). Six writ petitions challenged a series of Central Information Commission (CIC) orders that had (i) compelled disclosure of decades-old examination records and (ii) imposed maximum monetary penalties on the University’s Central Public Information Officers (CPIOs) for refusing information or returning applications that carried defective fee instruments.

Justice Sachin Datta allowed all six writ petitions. The Court:

Quashed CIC directions compelling disclosure of marks/degree details of third persons.
Set aside CIC penalties of ₹25,000 each levied on CPIOs.
Clarified the scope of fiduciary duty and “personal information” under Section 8(1)(e) and 8(1)(j) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act).
Explained that Section 8(3) (20-year rule) does not override the constitutional right to privacy recognised in K.S. Puttaswamy.
Re-articulated the “larger public interest” override when privacy and transparency collide.

Summary of the Judgment

Personal academic records = personal information. Marks, grades, degree registers and allied data fall within Section 8(1)(j) unless a demonstrable, compelling public interest demands disclosure.
Fiduciary relationship recognised. Universities hold student data in trust; disclosure to unrelated third parties is barred by Section 8(1)(e).
20-year clause doesn’t trump privacy. Section 8(3) cannot be read to force disclosure of inherently private data simply because time has elapsed.
Penalty power to be used sparingly. Returning an RTI application due to defective IPO/Demand Draft is at worst a procedural lapse, not a mala-fide denial warranting penalty under Section 20.
CIC orders set aside. All disclosure and penalty directions were quashed; the writ petitions were allowed.

Analysis

1. Precedents Cited & Their Influence

Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court of India v. Subhash Chandra Agarwal (2020) 5 SCC 481 – treated marks/grades as “personal information”; Delhi HC relied heavily on para 70 to hold that academic data is protected.
CBSE v. Aditya Bandopadhyay (2011) 8 SCC 497 – provided the three-tier classification of information and warned against administrative paralysis from indiscriminate RTI requests; cited to show that RTI is not absolute.
ICAI v. Shaunak H. Satya (2011) 8 SCC 781 – recognised fiduciary nature of model answers & examiner communications; used by the Court to extend fiduciary logic to student records.
K.S. Puttaswamy (Privacy-9J.) (2017) 10 SCC 1 – privacy as fundamental right; invoked to read Section 8 purposively and to hold that privacy survives the 20-year rule.
Bihar PSC v. Saiyed Hussain Abbas Rizwi (2012) 13 SCC 61 – laid down “objective satisfaction” test for public-interest override; Delhi HC used this yardstick.
Onkar D. Kalmankar (Bom HC 2024) & ensuing SLP dismissal – distinguished: here academic marks were needed to test fairness of a recruitment. The Delhi HC held no analogous public interest in aged DU examination data.

2. Court’s Legal Reasoning

Textual Anchor — Section 8(1)(j). The Court read “personal information” broadly, in line with Subhash Chandra Agarwal. Disclosure of another person’s marks/degree has “no relationship to any public activity or interest”.
Fiduciary Duty — Section 8(1)(e). The University’s statutes & ordinances make it custodian of student data. Students repose trust that their data will be used only for academic/administrative purposes. Hence records are held in a fiduciary capacity.
Public-interest override rejected. The applicants offered no legitimate nexus between sought information and accountability in public office. Curiosity ≠ Public interest.
20-Year Clause Harmonised. Section 8(3) cannot eviscerate Article 21 privacy. Time alone cannot transform inherently personal data into public data.
Penalty Requirements Clarified. To attract Section 20 penalty the CPIO’s act must be mala-fide, without reasonable cause. Routine return of applications with defective fee instruments, followed by guidance to cure defects, is a “reasonable cause”.
Consistency & Non-Arbitrariness. CIC had earlier accepted the same University procedure in comparable cases; unexplained departure amounted to arbitrariness.

3. Impact of the Decision

Sets authoritative precedent for all educational institutions nationwide: third-party academic records are ordinarily exempt under Section 8(1)(j).
Guides CPIOs: procedural lapses (fee defects, missing IPO details) are not per se penal; penalties require proven mala-fide.
Balances RTI with the burgeoning data-protection regime (Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023) signalling stricter privacy protection in information law.
CIC adjudication expected to follow stricter, uniform standards to avoid inconsistent rulings and arbitrary penalties.
Applicants must now craft a clear, substantial “public-interest” case when seeking personal data; mere public curiosity will be insufficient.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Personal Information (Section 8(1)(j)): Data about an identifiable person (marks, addresses, medical details). Disclosable only if (a) it relates to public activity/interest or (b) larger public interest outweighs privacy.
Fiduciary Relationship (Section 8(1)(e)): A relation of trust where one party (fiduciary) must act for another’s benefit (beneficiary). Universities hold students’ data in trust, so they are fiduciaries.
20-Year Rule (Section 8(3)): After 20 years, many exemptions lapse except national security etc. But privacy, being constitutional, can still protect personal data beyond 20 years.
Public-Interest Override: Even exempt data can be disclosed if transparency brings real, compelling benefit to society (e.g., exposing fraud in public recruitment). Curiosity or sensationalism doesn’t qualify.
Penalty under Section 20: Maximum ₹25,000 can be levied only when CPIO malafidely or without reasonable cause hides info, gives false info, or destroys it. Genuine procedural errors are protected.

Conclusion

The Delhi High Court has delivered a definitive statement on the delicate interface between the citizen’s right to know and an individual’s right to privacy. By recognising that academic records lie in the protected zone of personal information and by tempering the CIC’s punitive zeal, the Court has restored doctrinal equilibrium envisaged by the RTI Act. Transparency remains the rule, but it cannot cannibalise privacy or impose unreasonable burdens on public authorities. Going forward, RTI applicants must establish a cogent public-interest basis for demanding third-party personal data, while CPIOs must process requests swiftly yet prudently, secure in the knowledge that honest procedural slips will not cost them their livelihood.