Bombay High Court: The Full Bench was constituted to consider whether a Public Trust registered under the provisions of Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950, which is running an institution that receives a grant from the State is duty bound to supply information sought from it under provisions of Right to Information Act, 2005. A Full Bench of Avinash G Gharote, Anil S Kilor, Urmila Joshi Phalke, JJ., concluded that if the information solicited under the RTI Act, is regarding the Public Trust, then there is no obligation to supply the information, if such Public Trust, does not fall within clause (i) of Sec2 (h) of the RTI Act and has not received any substantial Government largesse or land on concession, to implement the aims and objects of the said Public Trust.
The Court also concluded that “In case the information solicited is in respect of the Educational or other Institutions run by the Public Trust, then depending on the extent of financial support given by the State, in case such finance is found to be substantial, which is a plea to be decided by the Information Commissioner, information relating to such Educational or other Institutions can be directed to be supplied. The Charity Commissioner would also not be legally obliged to supply such information, which may be collected by him, in respect of the Public Trust, under the provisions of the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, in case such information falls under the exempted category mentioned in Section 8(j) of the Act and the demand does not have statutory backing. In case the information solicited does not fall in the exempted category under sec.8 of the RTI Act, then information as submitted to the Authorities under the provisions of the Maharashtra Public Act, under its various provisions by the Public Trust, can be supplied by the Authority who has custody of such information.”
The issue at hand stemmed from conflicting decisions by different courts. One set of judgments suggested that the Trust/Society running an educational institution, even if it receives grants from the government, does not qualify as a ‘Public Authority’ under the RTI Act. This is because the grants are received by the educational institution and not directly by the Trust/Society. Therefore, information pertaining to the affairs of the Trust/Society may not be considered ‘information‘ as defined in section 2(f) of the RTI Act. On the other hand, another set of judgments argued that since the educational institution receiving the grant is owned and controlled by the Society/Trust, which has access to the finances provided by the State to the institution, information regarding the Society/Trust should be made available under the RTI Act.
Counsel for petitioner contended that the Trust, not being the direct recipient of grants, should not be obligated to disclose information under the RTI Act. He argued that even though the State provides grants to the institutions, it’s a common policy for all aided institutions, and thus, the Trust itself doesn’t qualify as a ‘Public Authority’ under the RTI Act. On the contrary, counsel for respondent, Mr. Amol Patil argued that since the Trust receives substantial funding from the State, it should be considered a ‘Public Authority’ under the RTI Act, regardless of whether the funds are directly received by the Trust or not. The Assistant Government Pleader, Mr. Mehroz Pathan, supported Mr. Amol Patil’s argument, emphasizing that the Trust’s control over the educational institutions it operates should make it subject to the RTI Act.
The Court discussed various cases from different courts around the applicability of the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005 to public trusts, educational institutions, and cooperative societies. In Bhaskar Shankarrao Kulkarni v. State Information Commissioner, 2009 SCC OnLine Bom 652, the Court held that the RTI Act does not apply to public trusts unless they are created by the government or substantially financed by it. The key factor here is the extent of government control or financial support received by the public trust. In Dr Panjabrao Deshmukh Urban Cooperative Bank Ltd. v. State Information Commissioner, 2009 SCC OnLine Bom 45, the Court held that the RTI Act does not apply to societies or banks, even if they receive some government aid. Merely being a shareholder does not entitle one to seek information under the RTI Act.
In S. S. Angadi v. State Chief Information Commissioner, Bangalore, 2008 SCC OnLine Kar 109, the Court held that societies registered under specific acts were held not to be covered under the RTI Act if not substantially controlled or financed by the government. The Court emphasized the language of sec.2(h) of the RTI Act in determining applicability. In Appellate Authority and Chairman Shikshan Prasark Mandali v. State Information Commissioner, 2012 SCC OnLine Bom 1576, the Court held that non-government educational institutions receiving grants-in-aid were considered public authorities under the RTI Act. The Court emphasized the direct or indirect receipt of grants-in-aid from the government.
In Thalappalam Service Coop. Bank Ltd. v. State of Kerala, (2013) 16 SCC 82, the Supreme Court analyzed whether a cooperative society registered under the Kerala Cooperative Societies Act, 1969 would qualify as a “public authority” under Section 2(h) of the Right to Information Act (RTI Act) and thus be obligated to provide information under the RTI Act and concluded that cooperative societies registered under the Kerala Cooperative Societies Act do not fall within the definition of “public authority” as defined in Section 2(h) of the RTI Act. Therefore, they are not legally obliged to provide information under the RTI Act.
Thus, the Court held that the RTI Act applies to public trusts, educational institutions, and cooperative societies only if they are created by the government or substantially financed or controlled by it. Merely receiving some form of government aid does not automatically bring an entity under the purview of the RTI Act. The extent of government control and financial support is crucial in determining whether an entity falls within the definition of a public authority under the RTI Act. The applicability of the RTI Act should be assessed based on the specific circumstances and legal provisions relevant to each case.
[People Welfare Society v. State Information Commissioner, 2024 SCC OnLine Bom 716, decided on 01-03-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
Mr. R. S. Parsodkar, counsel for the petitioner.
Mr. Amol B. Patil, counsel for the respondent No.1.
Mr. M.K.Pathan, AGP for the respondent No.2.
Mr. S.R.Narnaware, counsel for the respondent No.3.
