The CIC ruled in favour of disclosure, arguing that the educational qualifications of a public figure—such as the Prime Minister—are a matter of public interest and should be made transparent. Delhi
The CIC ruled in favour of disclosure, arguing that the educational qualifications of a public figure—such as the Prime Minister—are a matter of public interest and should be made transparent. Delhi University challenged this order, claiming that student records are held in a fiduciary capacity and that “mere curiosity” does not justify breaching privacy under the RTI Act
- Automobile
- 2 min read
;'%3e%3cpath%20d='m8,15.99c4.41,0,7.99-3.58,7.99-7.99S12.41,0,8,0,0,3.59,0,8s3.58,7.99,7.99,7.99Z'%20style='stroke:%23fff;%20stroke-miterlimit:10;%20stroke-width:.02px;'/%3e%3cpath%20d='m3.08,3.37l3.82,5.11-3.84,4.15h.87l3.37-3.64,2.72,3.64h2.94l-4.04-5.39,3.58-3.87h-.86l-3.1,3.35-2.5-3.35h-2.94Zm1.27.64h1.35l5.97,7.99h-1.35l-5.97-7.99Z'%20style='fill:%23fff;'/%3e%3c/g%3e%3c/svg%3e){kind=small}
The CIC ruled in favour of disclosure, arguing that the educational qualifications of a public figure—such as the Prime Minister—are a matter of public interest and should be made transparent.
Delhi University challenged this order, claiming that student records are held in a fiduciary capacity and that “mere curiosity” does not justify breaching privacy under the RTI ActThe CIC ruled in favour of disclosure, arguing that the educational qualifications of a public figure—such as the Prime Minister—are a matter of public interest and should be made transparent.
Delhi University challenged this order, claiming that student records are held in a fiduciary capacity and that “mere curiosity” does not justify breaching privacy under the RTI ActThe CIC ruled in favour of disclosure, arguing that the educational qualifications of a public figure—such as the Prime Minister—are a matter of public interest and should be made transparent.
Delhi University challenged this order, claiming that student records are held in a fiduciary capacity and that “mere curiosity” does not justify breaching privacy under the RTI ActThe CIC ruled in favour of disclosure, arguing that the educational qualifications of a public figure—such as the Prime Minister—are a matter of public interest and should be made transparent.
Advertisement
Delhi University challenged this order, claiming that student records are held in a fiduciary capacity and that “mere curiosity” does not justify breaching privacy under the RTI ActThe CIC ruled in favour of disclosure, arguing that the educational qualifications of a public figure—such as the Prime Minister—are a matter of public interest and should be made transparent.
Delhi University challenged this order, claiming that student records are held in a fiduciary capacity and that “mere curiosity” does not justify breaching privacy under the RTI ActThe CIC ruled in favour of disclosure, arguing that the educational qualifications of a public figure—such as the Prime Minister—are a matter of public interest and should be made transparent.
Advertisement
Delhi University challenged this order, claiming that student records are held in a fiduciary capacity and that “mere curiosity” does not justify breaching privacy under the RTI ActThe CIC ruled in favour of disclosure, arguing that the educational qualifications of a public figure—such as the Prime Minister—are a matter of public interest and should be made transparent.
Delh University challenged this order, claiming that student records are held in a fiduciary capacity and that “mere curiosity” does not justify breaching privacy under the RTI Ac