Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, the Board of Management of the Bombay Properties of the Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore, filed a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution challenging an order of the Central Information Commissioner (CIC) dated 15 February 2010. The CIC had held that the petitioner was a public authority under Section 2(h)(d) of the Right to Information Act, 2005, and directed it to furnish information sought by the third respondent regarding certain flats in Mumbai. The properties in question were originally vested in the Treasurer of Charitable Endowments under a Vesting Order dated 27 May 1909 passed under the Charitable Endowments Act, 1890. A scheme for administration of the properties was formulated at that time. Subsequently, by a order dated 13 November 1941, the properties were vested in the Treasurer of Charitable Endowments for India, and by a notification dated 22 May 1967, the Government of India, under Section 5 of the Charitable Endowments Act, substituted the earlier scheme with a new scheme that created the petitioner Board to manage the properties. The third respondent had filed an RTI application seeking information about the tenants, transfer of flats, and related matters. The Public Information Officer of the Institute initially rejected the application, and the first appeal was dismissed. The CIC, in an earlier order, held that the Board was a public authority and directed it to respond. The Board denied being a public authority, leading to a second appeal and the impugned order. The main issue was whether the petitioner Board fell within the definition of 'public authority' under Section 2(h)(d) of the RTI Act, which includes any authority or body constituted by a notification or order of the appropriate government. The petitioner argued that the Board was not substantially financed by the government and that the presence of government officers on the Board did not make it a public authority. The court analyzed the scheme of 1967 and the provisions of the Charitable Endowments Act, and held that the Board was constituted by a government notification under Section 5(1) of that Act, thereby squarely falling within Section 2(h)(d) of the RTI Act. The court noted that clause (d) is independent of the criteria of ownership, control, or financing, and that the RTI Act aims to promote transparency and accountability. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed, and the CIC's order was upheld.
Headnote
A) Right to Information - Definition of Public Authority - Section 2(h)(d) of Right to Information Act, 2005 - An authority or body constituted by an order or notification of the appropriate government is a public authority irrespective of financing - The petitioner Board was constituted under a Scheme notified by the Government of India on 22 May 1967 under Section 5(1) of the Charitable Endowments Act, 1890, thus satisfying the definition - Held, the Board is a public authority and must provide information (Paras 5-7). B) Charitable Endowments - Scheme of Administration - Section 5(1) of Charitable Endowments Act, 1890 - A scheme for administration of trust property vested in the Treasurer of Charitable Endowments can be modified or substituted by subsequent notification - The 1967 Scheme substituted the 1909 Scheme and created the Board as an administrative entity - Held, the Board's constitution by government notification brings it under the RTI Act (Paras 5-6). C) Interpretation of Statutes - Public Authority under RTI Act - Section 2(h)(d) of Right to Information Act, 2005 - Clause (d) is independent and does not require ownership, control, or substantial financing by the government - The petitioner's argument that the Board was not substantially financed was irrelevant because it was constituted by government notification - Held, the Board is covered under clause (d) without needing to consider financing (Paras 6-7).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the petitioner Board of Management is a 'public authority' as defined under Section 2(h)(d) of the Right to Information Act, 2005, and therefore liable to provide information under the Act.
Final Decision
The writ petition was dismissed. The High Court upheld the CIC's order that the petitioner is a public authority under Section 2(h)(d) of the RTI Act, and directed the petitioner to comply with the direction to provide information.
Law Points
- A body constituted by a notification or order of the appropriate government under any law falls within the definition of public authority under Section 2(h)(d) of the RTI Act
- The phrase 'substantially financed' includes indirect funding or control
- The Board of Management created under a scheme of the Charitable Endowments Act
- 1890 is a public authority
- The RTI Act is a practical regime for transparency and accountability.
