New Delhi: The Gujarat high court has reserved its verdict in a challenge to the 2016 Central Information Commission order directing the Gujarat University to “search for information regarding degrees in the name of Mr Narendra Damodar Modi”. The CIC ruling had come following a letter by Delhi chief minister Arvind Kejriwal to the Commission, in which he had sought the details of the PM’s MA degree in ‘Entire Political Science’ and demanded that it be made public.‘No public interest involved’Appearing before the bench of Justice Biren Vaishnav on behalf of Gujarat University, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta submitted before the court that Modi’s degree was in the public domain and that there was no obligation under the Right to Information Act for the university to disclose it to any third person. “Universities cannot be compelled to disclose degrees, especially when there is no public interest in question,” he said.The Solicitor General had also demanded that the Gujarat University’s plea be allowed with cost saying else “we will be doing a great disservice to the (RTI) Act”. He insisted that “the (RTI) Act is intended for something else, and it is being used for something else. It is being used for settling scores, used for childish jabs, that is not the purpose of it”.Mehta also objected to being directed to divulge a degree under “the RTI Act for any of our (GU) students”. The CIC had directed the university to “search for information regarding degrees in the name of Mr Narendra Damodar Modi”. The Gujarat University subsequently filed a petition through its registrar challenging the CIC order.In his argument, Mehta also stated that just because the prime minister was holding a high office, it does not mean the issue is in public interest. He asked if the university can be compelled to disclose the details of the degree when there was no public interest involved. He insisted that “under the RTI, information of a private nature can be disclosed only when it is related to public activity through some way” and “if the person himself wants his/her own degree from the University, he/she can demand the same, but a third person can’t demand the same”.“The only purposeful, meaningful or literal interpretation (of exemption of disclosure as enlisted under RTI Act section 8) is while seeking information of private nature, the information, the disclosure of which should have relationship with the public activity. What breakfast I had cannot be related to public activity… You can say what expenditure was incurred by a public functionary because the disclosure is related to his public activity, nothing beyond that,” he contended.In 2016, Gujarat University produced Modi’s MA mark sheet before the CIC.‘Matter out of scope of hearing in the court’Appearing on behalf of Kejriwal, senior advocate Percy Kavina had argued that the Gujarat University cannot claim “impunity or immunity from the law on the ground that one person does not hold any high office… is outside the scope of hearing in the court”.She also submitted that while “the PIO (public information officer) of PMO (Prime Minister’s Office) has not chosen to challenge this order” it was “another person who is incidentally tasked with some complaint” who has chosen to challenge it.Mehta had also claimed that “under the RTI, information of a private nature can be disclosed only when it is related to public activity through some way” and added that “if the person himself wants his/her own degree from the University, he/she can demand the same, but a third person can’t demand the same”.