The Gujarat High Court on September 29, 2026, rejected Arvind Kejriwal’s appeal in the case related to Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s academic degree, upholding the ₹25,000 cost imposed on him. A division bench of Chief Justice Sunita Agarwal and Justice D.N. Ray upheld the single judge’s order, which had quashed a 2016 Central Information Commission (CIC) directive requiring Gujarat University to disclose details of Modi’s degree. The court stated that no error was found in the judgment impugned, and the appeal was dismissed without further cost orders.

Kejriwal’s counsel, Abhishek Manu Singhvi, challenged the imposition of costs, arguing that his client had not 'persisted' in seeking Modi’s degree, as observed by the single judge. Singhvi also contended that the CIC had initiated proceedings suo motu and named Kejriwal as a respondent based on a letter, not a formal application. He further argued that if the degree was available online, it should fall within the scope of the Right to Information (RTI) Act, thereby negating the cause of action.

Gujarat University’s solicitor general, Tushar Mehta, countered that Kejriwal had pursued the case relentlessly, holding press conferences to defame the institution. Mehta urged the high court to impose costs to prevent misuse of the RTI Act and to ensure government officials are not burdened with requests that do not serve the law’s purpose. The university had previously stated that the degree was available online, but Kejriwal’s lawyers later claimed it had never been uploaded, a plea that was rejected by the single judge.

In 2016, Kejriwal wrote to the CIC, expressing no objection to government records about himself being made public but questioning why the commission wanted to 'hide' information about Modi’s educational qualifications. Based on this letter, the CIC directed Delhi University and Gujarat University to provide information on Modi’s degrees. The universities challenged the order in the high court, which stayed the CIC directive three months later. In May 2016, Gujarat University’s vice-chancellor, M.N. Patel, stated that Modi had completed his MA in Political Science in 1983 with 62.3% as an external student. The university later published the degree online and challenged the CIC order in the high court, which quashed the directive and imposed a cost of ₹25,000 on Kejriwal, reprimanding him for misusing RTI provisions.

Kejriwal then challenged the single judge’s order before the division bench, which ultimately rejected his appeal. The court’s decision underscores the legal boundaries of the RTI Act and the potential consequences of persistent requests for information deemed not in the public interest. The case highlights tensions between transparency and the misuse of public records, with the court emphasizing the need to prevent frivolous litigation. The exact status of the degree’s online availability remains unclear, as the evidence does not confirm whether it was ever uploaded or if the university’s claim was accurate.