Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose from applications filed by respondent No.5, an ex-employee of Queen Mary’s High School & Junior College run by petitioner No.1 trust, seeking information from the Education Officer regarding his employment and other matters. The school being a private unaided institution was not a public authority under the Right to Information Act, 2005, a fact accepted by all authorities. However, the First Appellate Authority by order dated 5 May 2011 directed the Education Officer (Secondary) to gather the information from the petitioners and supply it to respondent No.5. The State Information Commissioner, in further appeal, passed the impugned order dated 10 February 2012 confirming the direction and additionally instructing the Education Officer to use powers under the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 to procure the information. The petitioners, comprising the trust, one of its trustees, and the headmistress, challenged both orders by way of a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. The core legal question was whether Section 19(8) of the RTI Act empowers the Information Commission to direct a public authority to collect information from a third party that is not a public authority and provide it to the information seeker. The petitioners argued that such a direction exceeded the jurisdictional limits of the Commission, effectively applying the RTI Act to an entity not covered by it, and that the orders violated the third-party procedure under Section 11 and natural justice. Respondent No.5, on the other hand, contended that the information was accessible by the Education Officer and the impugned direction was within the scope of the Commission’s power under Section 19(8), relying on an unreported decision of the Uttaranchal High Court. The Court, after examining the scheme of the RTI Act, held that Section 19(8) confers power on the Information Commission only to require the public authority to take such steps as may be necessary to secure compliance with the provisions of the Act. This power is restricted to information held by or under the control of the public authority and does not extend to directing the public authority to extract information from a third party, especially by invoking other enactments. The direction to use the MEPS Act to coerce the petitioners to supply information was tantamount to indirectly applying the RTI Act to an entity not defined as a public authority, which is impermissible. The Court further noted that the Commission failed to follow the mandatory third-party procedure under Section 11, and the petitioners were denied an opportunity of hearing. Consequently, the writ petition was allowed. The orders dated 5 May 2011 and 10 February 2012 were quashed and set aside, with no order as to costs. The judgment reaffirms that the RTI Act’s remedial scheme cannot be stretched to encompass private unaided institutions that are outside the definition of public authority, and the Commission cannot achieve through directions what the legislature has not provided for in the statute.
Headnote
A) Right to Information – Applicability – Private unaided school not a public authority – Right to Information Act, 2005, Sections 2(h), 2(f) – The concurrent finding that the petitioner school, a private unaided institution run by a charitable trust, is not a public authority under the RTI Act was undisputed; therefore, no obligation arose directly under the Act for the school to furnish information. (Para 7) B) Right to Information – Powers of Information Commission – Direction to public authority to collect information from third party under other laws exceeds jurisdiction – Right to Information Act, 2005, Section 19(8) – The State Information Commissioner, while deciding an appeal, directed the Education Officer (Secondary) to use the provisions of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 to gather information from the petitioners and supply it to the applicant. Held that Section 19(8) empowers the Commission to require the public authority to take steps necessary to secure compliance with the RTI Act but does not include the power to compel a third party, which is not a public authority, to furnish information that the public authority neither holds nor controls. Such a direction amounts to indirectly applying the RTI Act to an entity not covered by it and is without jurisdiction. (Paras 7-9, 11) C) Right to Information – Third Party Information – Mandatory procedure under Section 11 not followed – Right to Information Act, 2005, Sections 2(n), 11 – The information sought pertained to the petitioners, who were third parties as defined under the Act. The Commission failed to issue the mandatory notice and hear their objections as required by Section 11. This procedural infirmity vitiated the impugned order. (Paras 4, 10) D) Constitutional Law – Principles of Natural Justice – Denial of hearing – Constitution of India, Article 14 – The petitioners contended that no notice of the hearing on 16.12.2011 was issued to them and the order was passed ex parte. Although the jurisdictional error rendered this ground secondary, the action of the Commission violated the principles of natural justice. (Paras 3, 10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether under Section 19(8) of the Right to Information Act, 2005, the State Information Commissioner has power to direct a public authority to collect information from a private unaided school (which is not a public authority) and provide it to the information seeker; Whether such a direction is an indirect method of applying the RTI Act to entities not covered by it, thereby exceeding jurisdiction; Whether the impugned orders violated the principles of natural justice and the third-party procedure under Section 11 of the Act.
Final Decision
Writ petition is allowed. The impugned orders dated 5 May 2011 and 10 February 2012 are quashed and set aside. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Private unaided school is not a public authority under the RTI Act
- State Information Commissioner cannot direct a public authority to use other enactments to collect information from third parties not covered by the Act
- Section 19(8) powers are limited to requiring the public authority to take steps to secure compliance with the Act and do not extend to compelling third parties to furnish information not held by the public authority
- Third party information must follow the procedure under Section 11 of the RTI Act
- Directions that indirectly apply the RTI Act to entities outside its scope exceed jurisdiction and violate the statutory scheme
