Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
DEEPAK GUPTA, ANIRUDDHA BOSE, JJ.
D.A.V. College Trust and Management Society and Others – Appellants
Versus
Director of Public Instructions and Others – Respondents
Civil Appeal Nos. 9828, 9844-9845, 9846-9857, 9860 of 2013
Decided On : 17-09-2019
(A) Right to Information Act, 2005 – Section 2(h) – Public Authority – Non-governmental organisations substantially financed by appropriate government – NGO substantially financed, directly or indirectly, by funds provided by appropriate government would be a public authority amenable to provisions of Act – NGO is created by natural or legal entities with no participation or representation by Government – Even NGOs which are funded totally or partially by Governments essentially maintain NGO status by excluding Government representations in all their organisations – Every citizen has right to get information from public authority – Any body which is owned, controlled or substantially financed by Government, would be a public authority – A society which may not be owned or controlled by Government, may be an NGO but if it is substantially financed directly or indirectly by the government it would fall within ambit of sub-clause (ii) – Appellants are all colleges or associations running colleges and/or schools and their claim is that Non-Governmental Organisations (NGOs) are not covered under the Act – Substantial financing can be both direct or indirect – Very establishment of such an institution, if it is dependent on largesse of State in getting land at a cheap price, would mean that it is substantially financed – Merely because financial contribution of State comes down during actual funding, will not by itself mean that indirect finance given is not to be taken into consideration – Whether an NGO or body is substantially financed by government is a question of fact which has to be determined on facts of each case – Act was enacted with the purpose of bringing transparency in public dealings and probity in public life – If NGOs or other bodies get substantial finance from Government, no reason why any citizen cannot ask for information to find out whether his money which has been given to an NGO or any other body is being used for requisite purpose or not. (Paras 15, 17, 22, 23, 24, 26, 27 and 29)
(B) Interpretation of Statute – Statutory Rule of Interpretation – When in definition clause a meaning is given to certain words then that meaning alone will have to be given to those words – However, when definition clause contains words ‘means and includes’ then both these words must be given emphasis required and one word cannot override the other – Word ‘means’ indicates that definition is exhaustive and complete – It is a hard and fast definition and no other meaning can be given to it – On other hand, word ‘includes’ enlarges scope of expression – Word ‘includes’ is used to signify that beyond meaning given in definition clause, other matters may be included keeping in view nature of language and object of provision. (Paras 8 and 10)
© Interpretation of Statute – Principle of Purposive Construction – While giving a purposive interpretation, court is required to place itself in chair of Legislature or author of Statute – Provision should be construed in such a manner to ensure that object of Act is fulfilled – If language of Act is clear then language has to be followed and court cannot give its own interpretation – However, if language admits of two meanings then court can refer to Objects and Reasons and find out true meaning of provisions as intended by authors of enactment. (Para 20)
Facts of Case:
Whether nongovernmental organisations substantially financed by appropriate government fall within ambit of ‘public authority’ under Section 2(h) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 is the issue for consideration in this case.
Findings of Court:
While interpreting the provisions of the Act and while deciding what is substantial finance one has to keep in mind the provisions of the Act. This Act was enacted with the purpose of bringing
transparency in public dealings and probity in public life. If NGOs or other bodies get substantial finance from the Government, we find no reason why any citizen cannot ask for information to find out whether his/her money which has been given to an NGO or any other body is being used for the requisite purpose or not.
Result : Appeals disposed of with observations.
JUDGMENT :
DEEPAK GUPTA, J.
1. Whether non-governmental organisations substantially financed by the appropriate government fall within the ambit of ‘public authority’ under Section 2(h) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 is the issue for consideration in this case.
2. The Right to Information Act (for short ‘the Act’) was enacted by Parliament in the year 2005, for the purpose of setting out a practical regime of right to information for citizens to secure access to information. The relevant portion of the Objects and Reasons of the Act reads as follows:
“.......AND WHEREAS democracy requires an informed citizenry and transparency of information which are vital to its functioning and also to contain corruption and to hold Governments and their instrumentalities accountable to the governed.
AND WHEREAS revelation of information in actual practice is likely to conflict with other public interests including efficient operations of the Governments, optimum use of limited fiscal resources and the preservation of confidentiality of sensitive information.
AND WHEREAS it is necessary to harmonise these conflicting interests while preserving the paramountcy of the democratic ideal.”
3. Under the Act, a public authority is required to maintain records in terms of Chapter-II and every citizen has the right to get information from the public authority. ‘Public authority’ is defined in Section 2(h) of the Act which reads as follows:
“...........
(h) “public authority” means any authority or body or institution of self-government established or constituted:
(a) by or under the Constitution.
(b) by any other law made by Parliament.
(c) by any other law made by State Legislature.
(d) by notification issued or order made by the appropriate Government and includes any:
(i) body owned, controlled or substantially financed.
(ii) non-Government organisation substantially financed, directly or indirectly by funds provided by the appropriate Government.”
4. The appellants before us are all colleges or associations running the colleges and/or schools and their claim is that Non-Governmental Organisations (NGOs) are not covered under the Act. According to the appellants, the objective of the Act was to cover only Government and its instrumentalities which are accountable to the Government. It has also been urged that the words ‘public authority’ mean any authority or body or institution of self-government and such body or institution must be constituted under the Constitution, or by any law of Parliament, or by any law made by the State Legislature or by a notification issued or order made by the appropriate Government.
5. It is urged that unless a specific notification is issued, in terms of clause (d), no body or institution outside the ambit of clauses (a) to (c) of Section 2(h) can be deemed to be public authority. It is further urged that there are 4 types of public authorities as pointed out above, i.e., those set up (a) under the Constitution, (b) by an Act of Parliament, (c) by any law made by State Legislature, or (d) by notification issued or order made by the appropriate Government. No other authority can be considered a public authority. Since the appellants do not fall under any of the above mentioned 4 categories, they cannot be termed to be public authority.
6. As far as definition of public authority is concerned this Court has dealt with the matter in detail in Thalappalam Service Cooperative Bank Ltd. and Others vs. State of Kerala and Others, (2013) 16 SCC 82. It would however, be pertinent to mention that in that case the Registrar of Cooperative Societies had issued a Circular No. 23 of 2006 directing that all cooperative societies would fall within the ambit of the Act. This notification was challenged before this Court. Dealing with Section 2(h) of the Act, this Court in the aforesaid judgment held as follows:
“30. The legislature, in its w
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
