Case Note & Summary
The case involves a challenge by the Archbishop Patriarch of Goa, Daman & Diu, Most Rev. Fr. Filipe Neri Ferrao, represented through his Procurator Fr. Valeriano Vaz, against an order dated 16.12.2014 passed by the Goa State Information Commissioner. The Commissioner held that the Patriarchal Tribunal of the Archdiocese of Goa and Daman is a 'public authority' under Section 2(h) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act). The respondent no.2, Smt. Antonia Michelle Abel, had applied to the Public Information Officer of the High Court of Bombay at Goa seeking certified copies of various documents related to the appointment of the Archbishop and the functioning of the Patriarchal Tribunal. The PIO transferred the application to the petitioner, who declined to provide the information, contending that the Tribunal is not a public authority. The Information Commissioner, however, ruled against the petitioner, leading to the present writ petition. The petitioner argued that the Tribunal is an ecclesiastical body of the Catholic Church, not created by any Indian law, and is not substantially financed by the government. The respondent no.2 contended that the Tribunal performs public functions, such as adjudicating marriage disputes under the Portuguese Civil Code applicable in Goa, and receives some government grants. The court analyzed the definition of 'public authority' under Section 2(h) of the RTI Act, particularly clause (d)(ii) which covers bodies owned, controlled, or substantially financed by the government. The court held that the Patriarchal Tribunal is not a public authority because it is not substantially financed by the government. The court noted that the Tribunal's primary funding comes from the Church, and any government grants are minimal and not substantial. The court also observed that the Tribunal is not created by any Indian statute but by Canon Law, and its functions, though recognized by the Portuguese Civil Code, do not make it a public authority under the RTI Act. The court emphasized that the burden of proof lies on the applicant to show that the body is a public authority, which the respondent no.2 failed to discharge. Consequently, the court allowed the writ petition, quashed the Information Commissioner's order, and held that the Patriarchal Tribunal is not a public authority under the RTI Act.
Headnote
A) Right to Information - Public Authority - Definition under Section 2(h) - The issue was whether the Patriarchal Tribunal of the Archdiocese of Goa and Daman qualifies as a 'public authority' under Section 2(h) of the RTI Act, 2005. The court held that the Tribunal is not a public authority as it is not substantially financed by the government, and the mere fact that it performs some public functions or receives some government grants does not bring it within the definition. The Information Commissioner's order was set aside. (Paras 2, 10-15) B) Right to Information - Substantial Financing - Test for Public Authority - The court clarified that for a body to be a public authority under Section 2(h)(d)(ii) of the RTI Act, the financing by the government must be 'substantial', meaning it should be the primary or significant source of funding. Occasional grants or subsidies do not suffice. The Patriarchal Tribunal's funding from the government was minimal and not substantial. (Paras 10-15) C) Right to Information - Burden of Proof - The court held that the burden lies on the applicant seeking information to establish that the body is a public authority under the RTI Act. The respondent no.2 failed to discharge this burden. (Para 14)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Patriarchal Tribunal of the Archdiocese of Goa and Daman is a 'public authority' within the meaning of Section 2(h) of the Right to Information Act, 2005.
Final Decision
The writ petition is allowed. The order dated 16.12.2014 passed by the Goa State Information Commissioner is quashed and set aside. It is held that the Patriarchal Tribunal of the Archdiocese of Goa and Daman is not a 'public authority' within the meaning of Section 2(h) of the Right to Information Act, 2005.
Law Points
- Public authority definition under Section 2(h) of RTI Act
- 2005
- substantial financing test
- ecclesiastical tribunals not covered by RTI Act
- burden of proof on applicant to show public authority status
