Use RTI to Verify Another Person Degree or Marks: Guide 2026

Can you file an RTI to check whether a candidate, politician, job applicant, or suspected fake-degree holder actually earned the degree they claim? Yes. A person educational qualification, the degree they hold, and their marks are generally NOT private personal information that a Public Information Officer can hide under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act 2005. Education is a qualification that concerns society, and courts have repeatedly ordered such records disclosed.

This is a third-party degree-verification guide, not a guide to chasing your own delayed result. It explains who to ask, how the Section 11 third-party notice works, what the law actually says, and the exact words to use when a PIO wrongly stamps your request as private. It is balanced: a degree and final marks are public-facing, while a raw answer-sheet or internal scorecard of another person can sometimes be lawfully withheld.

1. Identify the right public authority. For a degree or convocation record, write to the Registrar of the university or the Controller of Examinations. For a job applicant or appointee, you can also ask the public-authority employer that hired on the strength of that qualification, since it holds the verification file.
2. Confirm the body is covered. Central and State universities, and most government-aided colleges, are public authorities under Section 2(h). A purely private institution may not be, but the regulator or affiliating university usually is.
3. Draft a precise request under Section 6(1). Name the person, the claimed degree, the year, and the enrolment or roll number if you have it. Ask for confirmation of the degree, the year of passing, and the final marks or division.
4. Pay the fee under Section 7(1). Attach the ₹10 fee (cash, IPO, demand draft, or court-fee stamp as your State rules allow). BPL applicants are exempt.
5. Expect a possible Section 11 third-party notice. If the PIO treats the record as third-party information, the PIO must write to that person within 5 days, who then has 10 days to object. The PIO still decides, and public interest can override an objection.
6. If refused under 8(1)(j), file a first appeal under Section 19(1) within 30 days to the First Appellate Authority, quoting the case law below.
7. If still refused, file a second appeal under Section 19(3) to the Central or State Information Commission. The Commission can order disclosure and penalise a PIO who withheld without reason.

You can speed up drafting with the AI RTI Drafter or check a refusal with the RTI Assistant.

• Your RTI application on plain paper, addressed to the PIO of the university or employer
• The ₹10 application fee in your State approved mode
• Any identity proof your State RTI rules require
• Details of the person and degree: name, roll or enrolment number, year, course
• BPL certificate, only if you are claiming fee exemption

The Public Information Officer routinely refuses third-party degree requests under Section 8(1)(j), which protects “personal information” whose disclosure has no public interest and would invade privacy. That refusal is usually wrong for a degree or final marks.

In University of Delhi v. Neeraj and Anr (Delhi High Court, judgment dated 25 August 2025), the Court held that “Education being a qualification concerning the society in general, can never be treated as personal information.” It upheld the Central Information Commission view that disclosing a student educational records does not infringe privacy and that degrees and marks are effectively public information.

This sits on top of the Supreme Court ruling in CBSE v. Aditya Bandopadhyay, (2011) 8 SCC 497, which opened up examination records to RTI and treated evaluated answer-books as accessible information, while recognising limits. Read together, the settled position is: a degree and the marks behind it concern society and lean strongly toward disclosure, while a PIO must show real privacy harm and no public interest before withholding.

Be honest about the other side. A separate line of RTI decisions has allowed a bare answer-sheet or internal scorecard of a third party to be withheld where the applicant showed no larger public interest. So the strongest requests ask for the fact of the degree and the final marks, which are public-facing, rather than only the raw script.

For the full statutory route, see the RTI Act 2005 and RTI for degree verification.

• Accepting a Section 8(1)(j) refusal at face value. A degree concerns society, so the privacy label rarely holds. Appeal it.
• Asking only for the answer-sheet. Ask for the degree and final marks first, which are far harder to withhold.
• Skipping the public-interest argument. Under Section 8(1)(j) the PIO must weigh public interest. Spell out why verification matters, for example a public office or a hiring decision.
• Writing to the wrong office. The Registrar or Controller of Examinations holds the record, not a department clerk.
• Missing the 30-day first-appeal window under Section 19(1). Diarise the date the moment a refusal arrives.
• Forgetting the fee under Section 7(1), which lets a PIO reject the application as incomplete.

To,
The Public Information Officer,
Office of the Registrar / Controller of Examinations,
[Name of University],
[Address]

Subject: Request for information under Section 6(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005

Sir/Madam,

I seek the following information regarding the educational
qualification of Mr/Ms [Full Name], [Roll/Enrolment No. if known],
claimed course [Degree/Programme], claimed year [Year]:

  1. Whether the above person was awarded the said degree by your
     university, and the exact year of passing.
  2. The final marks, percentage, or division/class awarded.
  3. A certified copy of the degree or result record, if available.

Education is a qualification concerning society in general and is not
exempt personal information under Section 8(1)(j). Where any third-party
procedure under Section 11 applies, kindly follow it and decide in the
public interest.

I am enclosing the application fee of Rs. 10 under Section 7(1).
If any part is held in another office, please transfer it under
Section 6(3) and inform me.

Place:                                    Yours faithfully,
Date:                                     [Name]
                                          [Full address]
                                          [Phone / email]

To the First Appellate Authority, under Section 19(1):

The PIO has refused my request under Section 8(1)(j) treating a degree
and marks as private personal information. This is contrary to law. In
University of Delhi v. Neeraj and Anr (Delhi High Court, 25 August 2025),
the Court held that "Education being a qualification concerning the
society in general, can never be treated as personal information," and
upheld that disclosure of educational records does not infringe privacy.
The information I seek is the fact of a degree and the final marks, which
are effectively public. I request that the refusal be set aside and the
information be supplied.

You can build this with the AI RTI Drafter, and learn more about chasing imposters in our guide to the fake university degree scam. For the full method, get The RTI Playbook.

Yes, in most cases. A degree and the final marks are treated as a qualification concerning society, not private personal information. A PIO who refuses under Section 8(1)(j) is usually wrong, and a first appeal under Section 19(1) quoting the Delhi High Court holding generally succeeds.

That is allowed. The PIO writes to the person whose record you seek within 5 days, and that person has 10 days to object. The PIO, not the objector, makes the final call, and public interest can override an objection. A notice is not a refusal.

Not always. While CBSE v. Aditya Bandopadhyay opened up examination records, a separate line of RTI decisions has allowed a bare third-party answer-sheet or internal scorecard to be withheld where no public interest was shown. Ask for the degree and final marks first, which are far stronger.

Yes, and the public-interest argument is strongest here. A person holding or seeking public office relied on that qualification, so verifying it serves society. State this clearly in your application and in any appeal under Section 8(1)(j) public-interest balancing.

Write to the Registrar or the Controller of Examinations of the university that issued the degree. For an appointee, you may also write to the public-authority employer that verified the qualification. Avoid sending it to an unrelated department.

The application fee is ₹10, with BPL applicants exempt. The PIO must reply within 30 days, or 35 days when a Section 11 third-party notice is issued. A first appeal under Section 19(1) and a second appeal under Section 19(3) add more time if you are refused.

• Right to Information Act, 2005, Sections 6(1), 7(1), 8(1)(j), 11, 19(1) and 19(3)
• University of Delhi v. Neeraj and Anr, Delhi High Court, judgment dated 25 August 2025
• Central Board of Secondary Education v. Aditya Bandopadhyay, (2011) 8 SCC 497

• RTI for degree verification
• Fake university degree scam in India
• The RTI Act 2005 explained
• AI RTI Drafter
• RTI Assistant
• The RTI Playbook