Does A Public Trust Receiving State Grants Need To Provide Info Under The RTI Act? Bombay High Court Full Bench Judgment

The full bench of the Bombay High Court at Nagpur has clarified the obligations of public trusts registered under the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950 in providing information under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005 when they run institutions receiving grants from the state government.

The key question before the court was: Whether a public trust registered under the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act 1950, which is running an institution that receives grants from the state, is duty-bound to supply information sought from it under the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005?

In its detailed ruling, the full bench laid down the following principles:

1. If the information sought under the RTI Act, is regarding the Public Trust, then there is no obligation to supply the information

1. If the Public Trust, is NOT a “body owned, controlled or substantially financed” under Sec 2 (h)(i) of the RTI Act and not received substantial Government largesse or land on concession, to implement the aims and objects of the said Public Trust even then there isnt't an obligation to provide information.
2. However, if the information sought under the RTI Act pertains to Educational or other Institutions run by the Public Trust and if substantial financial support is given by the government, then the Information Commissioner can direct the Institution to supply the information.
3. The Charity Commissioner, would also not be legally obliged to supply information he may have collected about the Public Trust, if the information falls under Section 8(j) of the RTI Act.
4. But if the information sought doesn't fall in the exempted category under sec.8 of the RTI Act, them it can be supplied by the Authority who has the custody of such information.

The petitioner was the People Welfare Society, through its President Dr. Madhukarrao Wasnik, having office at PWS Arts and Commerce College, Kamptee Road, Nagpur against the State Information Commissioner, Nagpur.

Facts

The question arose due to different views taken by various judgments of the Bombay High Court on whether a Trust/Society running an educational institution receiving government grants would fall under the definition of a 'Public Authority' under Section 2(h) of the RTI Act.

One set of judgments held that since the educational institution itself receives grants and not the Trust/Society, information regarding the Trust/Society need not be disclosed under the RTI Act.

Another set of judgments took the view that since the Trust/Society controls the finances provided to the educational institution, information regarding the Trust/Society can be sought under the RTI Act.

Arguments

Counsel RS Parsodkar for the petitioner trust argued that it doesn't fall under the definition of “public authority” under Section 2(h) of the RTI Act so information couldn't be disclosed. Moreover, even if the State provides salary and non-salary grants to the educational institutions run by the Trust, it would only bring those institutions under the RTI Act's ambit, not the Trust itself. This is because the grants are provided as a policy matter to all aided institutions in the State.

Counsel Amol Patil, opposing the contention, submitted that since salary and non-salary grants are being supplied by the State to the petitioner/Trust, that by itself would indicate that there was substantial finance from the State, to the Petitioner /Trust thereby rendering the petitioner/Trust to be a 'public authority', as defined in Section 2(h)(i) of the RTI Act and therefore subject to the provisions of the RTI, requiring the disclosure of information as sought.

AGP Mehroz Pathan supported the contention.

Analysis

The court opined that a public trust, by its nature, is not created by a statute but by a trust deed executed by the settlor.

So generally, a public trust would not fall under clauses (a) to (d) of Section 2(h) of the RTI Act, which define 'public authority' in relation to bodies established/constituted by the Constitution.

However, for a public trust to fall under clause (i) of Section 2(h), which covers bodies "owned, controlled or substantially financed" by the government, the control envisaged is not merely regulatory supervision under the Public Trusts Act but control over the management and objects of the trust as per the trust deed.

Regarding being "substantially financed", merely receiving subsidies, grants or exemptions from the government cannot be considered substantial financing, unless the funding is so substantial that the trust practically runs because of such funding and would struggle to exist without it.

The court further stated the merely receiving salary and non-salary grants by educational institutions run by a public trust is due to the existence of a state policy to aid educational institutions and that by itself couldn't be construed as the Trust being substantially financed by the government.

The distinction between a trust/society and the educational institutions run by it, as laid down in previous judgments like Thalappalam and D.A.V. College Trust, should be maintained. While the institutions may qualify as 'public authorities' based on government funding, the same may not apply to the trust itself unless it has directly received substantial government aid or land.

Moreover, the Charity Commissioner's supervisory role does not obligate them to disclose the trust's information under the RTI Act if it is exempt under Section 8(1)(j) pertaining to personal information, the court held.

Therefore, the court held that that a public trust itself may not fall under the definition of 'public authority' under the RTI Act, unless it directly receives substantial government financing or aid for its aims and objects. The educational institutions run by the trust can potentially qualify based on funding received, but not necessarily the parent trust.

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment