Seven-Year-Long Wait for Narendra Modi's Degree Continues

Now, would it not be pertinent and appropriate that Prime Minister Narendra Modi clear the air about the niggling issue of his dodgy education qualifications once and for all, a controversy that never fails to pop up because it has not been resolved yet? Instead, the Modi government has gone out of its way to first be in denial about the controversy by ignoring it, then when it was forced to face the issue because of orders from the CIC and a series of litigations in court, and also public accusations ranging from opposition leaders like Delhi chief minister Arvind Kejriwal to Congress' Rahul Gandhi, to a string of RTI activists, now Modi and his team have the embarrassment of the issue being kept alive in the high court of Delhi.

It is scheduled to come up again on November 15 after being listed in the court earlier this year.

It has been a seven-year ride since the scandal first popped up in 2015 when suspicious RTI activists asked for a copy of Modi's college degree, but to their amazement, PMO and university officials, that Modi supposedly enrolled in from Gujarat to Delhi universities, would run to court to get injunctions to refuse to part with the degree certificates.

It was not the first time that Modi was forced to tell the truth in his election affidavit; in the run-up to his prime ministership in April 2014, Modi was forced to acknowledge his wife Jashodaben for the first time in the column of 'marital status' when in all previous affidavits, Modi would leave the space blank. He was compelled to fill the form fully following a Supreme Court judgement and a subsequent order by the Election Commission in September 2013, which made it mandatory for candidates to answer every criterion in the affidavit.

Despite an AAP leader's demand in Ahmedabad that the EC nullify Modi's election in the Gujarat Assembly elections in 2012 for leaving his marital status blank, EC's chief election officer Anita Karwal refused, saying the new guidelines took effect only a year later. Modi's brother Somabhai even pleaded that it was "a child marriage" and that he should not be penalised for it.

Why is it crucial that candidates are legally bound to give truthful information on an election affidavit? It is incumbent on every candidate to submit precise information regarding criminal records, assets and liabilities, educational qualifications and other criteria to make the voters aware of the candidates' background to make an informed choice.

Any falsehood is treated seriously under Section 125 (A) of the Representation of People Act, 1951, and is punishable with imprisonment of not more than six months, a fine, or both. There is also the threat of Section 177 of IPC for furnishing false information to a public servant, in this case, the election officer, punishable by imprisonment of up to two years, a fine, or both.

So, where does Modi's education case stand today?

It was on August 27, 2015, when RTI activist Neeraj Sharma first filed an enquiry under the RTI Act 2015, asking for a certified copy of Delhi University's register of the results of all students who had passed the BA degree in 1978 as Modi had said he graduated in that year. To Sharma's utter amazement, DU refused to give the information saying it treads on a person's privacy – bizarre because all results are made public on the university's notice board – and Sharma was forced to appeal to the CIC. The CIC took nine months to ask DU to provide details on December 21, 2016; yet again, DU filed an appeal in the Delhi High Court against the CIC order on January 2, 2017, and refused to give details of Modi's degree.

It must be said that the CIC commissioner Sridhar Acharyulu who ordered DU to furnish Modi's degree record, was summarily transferred out of HRD within 10 days of giving the order.

Sharma says the matter is in the court but has been beset by adjournments.

"First of all, it was none other than the Modi govt's legal officer, ASG Tushar Mehta, who appeared on behalf of DU to disallow inspection of Modi's degree. It says much about the Modi government's determination to back DU."

The chronology of events in the Delhi High court from January 2017 to the present is revealing.

According to Sharma, it was on January 23, 2017, the Delhi HC stayed the CIC order to allow "the inspection of the relevant register (of DU) where complete information about the result of all students who have passed in BA in the year 1978, along with roll numbers, names of students with father's names, passed and failed students." Sharma says they were not informed about the HC decision and were not called to reply. It was only on the next day they were notified – however, they sent a written reply on their arguments against the DU petition that insisted no information on the results of 1978 will be provided to outsiders.

DU was represented by the Modi government's top legal officer Mehta. Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva fixed the next hearing for April 27, 2017.

On the appointed day, Mehta for DU asked for more time, four weeks, to file a rejoinder affidavit to Sharma's arguments, and the court, under the judgeship of Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva, gave DU the required time to file. The date was set for November 16, 2017.

It was an enraged Justice Vibhu Bakhru, says Sharma, who responded sarcastically when DU's lawyer asked for more time to file a rejoinder. The judge mockingly said that even if the counsel had written one page every day in the interim months, he could have come with a tome. The judge said that despite sufficient time given to the DU lawyer, no rejoinder was filed and "so its (DU) right to do so stands closed." The case was listed then for February 28, 2018.

On the day of the hearing, another set of respondents intervened to file a petition, namely RTI activists Anjali Bhardwaj, Nikhil Dey, and Amrita Johri, who said the issue of declaring DU results was of grave importance as the interpretation of the petition would have serious ramifications on the fate and relevance of RTI itself.

To the shock of DU's counsel Mehta, who vehemently opposed the inclusion of the three RTI activists, Justice Rajiv Shakdher issued notice to DU and asked its counsel to file a reply within three weeks and a rejoinder, if any, to be filed in the next date of hearing, on May 22, 2018.

However, Mehta was not available at the appointed hour as he was in another chamber, and though the judge gave another time for later in the day, Mehta did not appear even at 4 pm. On Mehta's request, Judge Shakdher adjourned and gave another date for the hearing, August 23, 2018.

Not surprisingly, Mehta did not turn up again, and after a long wait until 5 pm, Justice Vibhu Bakhru listed the case for February 4, 2019.

 On the day of the hearing, Justice Anup Jairam Bhambani held long discussions on the issue of interpretation of the RTI act which lays down exemptions from disclosure of information; and the issue of personal information, "the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the concerned individual."

The judge then re-listed the matter for final arguments on April 23, 2019.

Mehta did not appear, pleading he was out of town; AAP's Sanjay Singh also became a respondent; and Justice V Kameshwar Rao adjourned the matter to July 25, 2019.

The matter was adjourned as Mehta said he was busy with a hearing in the Supreme Court. Still, though the respondents vehemently opposed it, Judge Rao fixed the matter for November 28, 2019, "in the interest of justice."

No arguments were offered on the new date even though Mehta, etc., were present, and Justice Jayant Nath set yet another date for the hearing, on January 28, 2020.

On the day, Mehta beseeched that the Solicitor General who was to argue the case was held up in another court. Despite protestations from the other side, Justice Nath scheduled another hearing on April 15 2020.

By then, Prime Minister Modi had declared a national lockdown due to the coronavirus outbreak, and all matters came to a standstill.

It was only on March 30, 2022, that the HC website showed the case hearing, but the case was not listed per se – however, on April 1, 2022, Justice Yashwant Varma fixed a date of November 15, 2022, for the next hearing "due to paucity of time", and the case could not be heard on March 30.

Mehta has always argued with the Gujarat High Court order, which dismissed the plea for providing records of Modi's MA degree in Entire Political Science (a subject that has never been offered in the university) on a technical point. As the VC of GU explained in 2016, the details of marks can only be provided to the candidate himself, and the university does not provide records beyond 20 years. However, the VC finally gave details of Modi's results – he passed with a first-class degree in MA in Entire Political Science.

Meanwhile, in September 2016, when the controversy was at its peak, both Amit Shah and the late Arun Jaitley had triumphantly flashed copies of Modi's DU degree, saying it should finally squash any doubts. The AAP members, who have been on the frontline demanding answers exposed several discrepancies in the degree certificate – from the two different names in the mark sheets and certificates to the year the degree was awarded – Modi's election affidavit had claimed he cleared the exams in 1978, but the degree certificate showed the year 1979. The DU said it was a minor error.

So, what does Prime Mister Modi have to say about his university degree controversy? The only time the PM has talked about it was in 2001, a decade before he threw his hat into the ring for prime ministership, in a television interview with former journalist Rajeev Shukla. In a programme called Ru-Ba-Ru anchored by Shukla, Modi said in his reply to a question on his education, "I had left home at the age of 17. I left after school. Since then, I've been wandering in search of new things."

When Shukla asked if he studied only till school, Modi added, "There was a Sangh worker on whose insistence I started giving external exams. I did a BA from Delhi Univ through an external exam, but on his persistence, I did an MA through an external exam (too). I have never seen a college gate."

The writer is an independent journalist. The views are personal.