The Gujarat High Court has rejected an appeal filed by former Delhi Chief Minister and Aam Aadmi Party chief Arvind Kejriwal challenging a monetary fine imposed on him in a dispute over Prime Minister Narendra Modi's academic qualifications. With the dismissal of this challenge, the previously ordered penalty of 25,000 rupees remains fully enforceable. The division bench declined to alter the earlier findings of a single-judge bench, concluding that the original ruling suffered from no legal infirmity.
Judicial Criticism Over Misuse of RTI Provisions
During the proceedings, the high court made stern observations regarding the exploitation of the Right to Information mechanism for partisan purposes. The bench observed that elected representatives and political figures holding positions within the administrative framework should not deploy statutory processes to pursue political objectives. The court indicated that legal transparency frameworks are established to serve public accountability rather than function as tools for political rivalry.
Review by Chief Justice Led Division Bench
The appeal was examined by a division bench comprising Chief Justice Sunita Agarwal and Justice DN Ray. While evaluating the matter, the court noted that the arguments advanced on behalf of the appellant failed to demonstrate any substantial legal flaw in the single-judge bench's prior ruling. Since no procedural or jurisdictional defect could be established against the earlier judgment, the bench decided to dismiss the appeal. The court also clarified that no additional cost would be levied on the appellant beyond the existing financial penalty.
Background of the March 2023 Single Bench Judgment
The controversy dates back to a 2016 directive issued by the Central Information Commission regarding disclosure of information about the Prime Minister's educational qualifications. On March 31, 2023, a single-judge bench of the high court set aside the 2016 commission order and imposed a fine of 25,000 rupees on Arvind Kejriwal. The present judgment delivered by the two-judge bench affirms that March 2023 decision in its entirety, finding no reason to disturb the liability imposed on the political leader.
Scrutiny of the Central Information Commission Procedure
The high court also took note of the overall manner in which the proceedings before the Central Information Commission had unfolded. The bench pointed out that the approach taken by Kejriwal in submitting written replies and steering the commission process was self-explanatory and required no further elaboration. Furthermore, the court recognized that the Central Information Commission acted outside its legal domain by treating Kejriwal as an applicant and issuing directives on its own initiative. However, this procedural overstep by the commission did not provide any ground to invalidate the single-judge bench's decision to penalize the appellant.
