This article has been written by Vshrupt Modi from Kirit P.Mehta School of Law, NMIMS, Mumbai

FACTS

The case of D.A.V. College Trust and Managing Society v. Director of Public Instructions involved an independent organisation that manages institutions of learning in India, the D.A.V. College Trust and Managing Organisation.

Despite being a privately owned organisation, the Educational Trust received substantial financial support from the nation’s government, which covered 95% of the costs associated with paying its educational staff’s salaries. The Trust strongly contested being classified as a “public authority” under the (RTI) Act when the Director of Public Instructions requested information about the Trust’s financial activities under the (RTI), 2005.

However, the Supreme Court (Apex court of the country) of India rejected the Trust’s argument in a decision reached unanimously by Justices D.Y. Chandrachud, Indu Malhotra, and K.M. Joseph. The Court gave the word “public authority” an expansive meaning, including organisations that receive significant funding from the state.

The Trust was deemed to be subject to the terms of the Right to Information Act by the Court because of its heavy reliance on financing from the government. The court’s ruling made it clear that an entity’s status as a private trust had no bearing on how much responsibility it bore under the Right to Information Act (RTI Act). This important ruling has broad ramifications since it requires NGOs and other groups with comparable funding to ensure openness by keeping records and providing information in response to public requests.

The decision, which was made in 2019, has been hailed as a major victory for the Homeland’s Right to Information campaign.

ISSUES RAISED

1. Whether NGOs that get significant funding from the relevant government fall under the definition of “public authority” as stated in Section 2(h)^[1]?
2. Whether definition of the term “public authority” under Section 2(h) of the Right to Information Act, 2005^[2] should be applied?
3. Is the government’s assistance required to cover a large amount of an NGO’s running costs in order for it to qualify as “substantial financing” under the RTI Act^[3]?

CONTENTION

The D.A.V. College Trust and Managing Society maintained that because it was not owned, managed, or significantly supported by the government of India, it was not a “public authority” as defined under the Right to Information Act, 2005.

The Trust further maintained that a sizable amount of its running costs were not covered by the state funds it received. The Educational Trust got a significant amount of financing from the government, according to the Director of Public Instructions, hence it qualified as a “public authority” under the RTI Act.

The Director also claimed that the Trust’s status as a private trust had no bearing on the question of whether it qualified as a “public authority” for the purposes of the RTI Act.

The Supreme Court brushed aside the claims which were made by the trust and the organisation and determined that it qualified as a “public authority” under the RTI Act. The Court decided that the expression “public authority” should be used widely and to refer to any organisation or group that receives a significant portion of its funding from the government.

The government support the Educational Trust received was deemed “substantial” by the apex court since it covered nearly 95% of the costs associated with paying the faculty’s salaries and other kinds which were paid to them. The Court also declared that it was irrelevant to decide whether the Trust qualified as a “public authority” for the purposes of the RTI Act considering that it was a trust that was privately owned.

The Right to Information Act 2005, according to the Apex Court, was created to promote accountability as well as transparency in all those institutions that receive significant funding and grants from the government, regardless of their ownership or oversight.

RATIONALE

The Supreme Court’s ruling in this case, which understands the term public authority to mean any organisation or institution that receives substantial funding from the government under Right To Information Act (RTI Act), demonstrates how widely used is language of expression.

This reflects the basic purpose of the Act-to promote transparency and openness in trusts receiving large sums from government. It doesn’t matter whether one is public or private, corporate entity (whether incorporated under a separate legal personality) An act having been passed that requires it to be sincere occupying position does not change this fact at all).

An important consideration in the Court’s verdict was its recognition that most of its expenses for paying instructors ‘salaries were covered by substantial funding from government, which amounted to over 94 percent. It showed how much the Trust relied on financial assistance from government institutions.

The Court’s finding also made clear the insignificance of the Trust ‘characterization as a private trust under Private Trust Statute VII.13 in classifying it as an agency or public authority falling within RTI Act definition 2 (k). The Act, which is fundamentally concerned with the origin of funding rather than organizational control or authority.

The Court further noted that the actions of the Trust were in line with those of government. Trust-run universities and institutions The Court found the fact that students of theTrust used government financial aid, etc., fairly persuasive in identifying them as a “public authority” under sections 2(h) & (j) of RTI Act. The Supreme Court’s decision can be felt in the Right to Information activism across India.

The decision expands the types of bodies coming under RTI Act by defining what is meant within its scope as a public authority. It does this by making sure that the public can get information on how taxpayers ‘money is used. It is also bad news for organizations that have been able to avoid disclosure while receiving large sums of government money.

These organisations are now required to keep records and provide data on demand, while they themselves bear responsibility for their actions. This choice has major implications for India’s nonprofit organisations industry. The decision explicitly puts NGOs that receive lots of government money under the RTI Act.

As a result, these nonprofit organisations must operate with a greater degree of openness and make data available upon request. While this raises difficulties, it also gives non-governmental organisations a chance to increase public confidence and demonstrate their capable management of funds from the public.

The Supreme Court of India relied on the following cases to reach its conclusion:

1. In the case of Thalappalam Service Cooperative Bank Ltd. v. State of Kerala^[4], the Registrar of Cooperative Societies issued a circular stating that all cooperative societies would be subject to the Act. This circular was contested in the Supreme Court. The Court ruled that Section 2(h) of the Act defines the categories it covers. The first part includes government-established bodies and institutions. The second part includes bodies and NGOs substantially financed by the government.
2. In the case of P. Kasilingam v. P.S.G. College of Technology & Ors.^[5], the Supreme Court addressed the interpretation of ‘means and includes.’ The Court ruled that when both ‘means’ and ‘includes’ are employed, the mentioned categories are exhaustive. This interpretation aligns with the Court’s earlier explanation in DDA v. Bhola Nath Sharma^[6]. Therefore, in such cases, the meanings provided for these terms must be strictly adhered to within the context of the Act.
3. In the case of Abhiram Singh v. C.D. Commachen (Dead) by L.Rs. and Ors.^[7], the Supreme Court emphasized that in India, a welfare state, statutory texts may not fully capture the intended benefits for the people. Therefore, when interpreting such laws, a pragmatic and purposeful approach is essential to ensure that the intended benefits effectively reach the masses.

DEFECTS OF LAW

1. The expression “public authority” is defined too broadly. Organisations that are not directly involved in the execution of governmental authority may fall under this category, which may have a chilling impact on the right to free association and speech.
2. The term “public authority” is defined too narrowly. Commercial educational institutions and hospitals, for example, that have a significant impact on society may be left out of this, which would compromise their credibility and transparency.
3. How the Right to Information (RTI) Act should be applied to companies that the nation’s government owns or controls is unclear, according to the Supreme Court. The degree to which these organisations are governed by the Act has become unclear as a result of this.
4. There are no consequences for noncompliance under the RTI Act. As a result, ensuring that the Act is enforced may be challenging.
5. The RTI Act is not consistently upheld. This is because people are not aware of the Act, and there aren’t enough funds or political will to get it enforced.

INFERENCE

There are some vital implications emerging from the Superior Court’s judgment in the D.A.V .College Trust case, viz., that soi versus not-soi structures have been thrown open to oppression and exploitation by two classes of society; one class operates for a living at our expense just like us but will benefit on account wrongdoings perpetrated many years before It also broadened the definition of what falls under ‘public authority’ in RTI, for example defining that those who receive a substantial amount of funds from the national government are required to follow it.

This is a large change from Gosset’s narrower previous interpretation. Roughly speaking, this ruling means that organizations within the above-mentioned scope will be subject to monitoring under the RTI Act. Indeed, this is a welcome trend. It will make these organizations more accountable and transparent so they can engender people’s trust again.

Simply put, it means that now more spheres in society receive government support and are transparently open to inspection by the public. All this is good for transparency and accountability on our part as citizens.

Yet another notable aspect of the Court’s decision in D.A.V College Trust case is that it extended from object to object the definition of what qualifies as a public authority under RTI Act, 2005), over which information can be sought about its activity and functioning through applications for disclosure thereunder (Section 6).

What’s interesting is that this determination today no longer has any connection to the organization being privately owned or founded as a trust. However, this is a big departure from the traditional interpretation which emphasized government ownership or authority as the crucial element. In plain language, because of this judgment by the Court under RTI Act now covers any organization receiving large construction funds from government sources or carrying out important functions on behalf of a public authority for which it receives indirect funding.

It doesn’t matter if the entity in question is privately owned or not. In short, it increases the extent of accountability and transparency nets. That is to say that institutions known or unknown by names use taxpayers ‘money, regardless if they are classified as state institutes or society corporations (unincorporated bodies). Fairness and transparency in our results A registration fee must be paid to participate.

Third, the Court held that in order for government assistance or funds to be a “substantial financing” under the RTI Act., they need not necessarily cover much of an organization’s ongoing expenses. Therefore, organizations supported to a small extent only or even just marginally by the government could still be designated as public authorities for purposes of the RTI Act.

For many in India’s Right to Information movement, this case is of great importance. This judgment clearly also indicates that the ambit of provisions of the Act which create an obligation to provide information in response upon receipt by Genesis India or its sister organizations is extended now not only for larger groups but also institutions managed at several levels.

It would therefore help refine and make somewhat more crystallized what was left rather vague in regard as just who amounts to a public authority under Section In a nutshell, this decision means that the public’s right and need to see how tax funds are being spent will be promoted. It is an important step toward transparency within organizations of all sizes along with accountability for their administrating authorities Perhaps most importantly, the court’s verdict is a major victory for India ‘Right to Information campaign.

The fast track will help fully and effectively implement the Right to Information Act (RTI) to build transparency, accountability and righteousness throughout India. Such an act is a vital mechanism for butting governments and their agencies up against the wall in terms of what they do, and what happens as a result.

Conclusion

Its short, cleansing essays awaken the consciences of readers and allow them to share their thoughts with others. One crucial ingredient in a healthy democracy is that its citizens are informed enough to stay involved.

Outside of ejection-type effects, the judgement passed down by the apex court also has other consequences. As an example, she says the ruling could see further legal controversy over what constitutes a public authority under the RTI Act.

The Court’s decision is also likely to push yours and my government into modifying that act bringing more institutions within its definition of ‘public authorities’. While this would be good news for not only me but all other ordinary citizens in India who have given you so many votes

References

1. Right to Information Act, 2005, § 2(h), Acts of Parliament, 1949 (India). ↑
2. Ibid. ↑
3. Right to Information Act, 2005, Acts of Parliament, 1949 (India). ↑
4. Thalappalam Services Cooperative Bank Ltd. vs. State of Kerala, (2013) 16 SCC 82. ↑
5. P. Kasilingam v. P.S.G. College of Technology & Ors (1995) 2 SCC 348, 1995 AIR 1395. ↑
6. DDA v. Bhola Nath Sharma (2010) 10 SCC 636. ↑
7. Abhiram Singh v. C.D. Commachen (dead) By Lrs. & Ors, (1996) 3 SCC 665, (2014) 14 SCC 38 ↑