The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of Section 2(h) of the RTI Act and the determination of whether an entity falls within the definition of a public authority.

1. The short question that arises for determination is whether the Delhi Sikh Gurudwara Management Committee (“DSGMC”) is a public authority within the meaning of Section 2(h) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (“RTI Act”)?

2. On 22nd July 2009, the CIC held the DSGMC, which is established under Section 3 of the Delhi Sikh Gurudwaras Act, 1971 (“DSG Act”) to be a public authority under the RTI Act. The Respondents in both writ petitions were initially unsuccessful in seeking information from the DSGMC pursuant to the applications filed by them under the RTI Act. In the second appeal filed by each of them the CIC passed orders directing the DSGMC to provide them the information before 5th August, 2009. When there was continued non-compliance by the DSGMC, the CIC directed notice to the Public Information Officer (“PIO”). Thereafter, a notice was sent to the General Manager of the DSGMC. He was unable to give any valid explanation for not complying with the CIC’s orders. Accordingly, a penalty of Rs.25,000/- was levied on the General Manager and the penalty was asked to be recovered from his salary. Aggrieved by the said orders, the DSGMC has filed these writ petitions.

3. While directing notice to the Respondent, subject to the deposit of Rs.5000/- as litigation expenses, this Court by an order dated 4th February 2010 directed a stay of the impugned orders.

4. This Court has heard submissions of Mr. K.T.S. Tulsi, learned senior counsel appearing for the DSGMC and Mr. Gurbaksh Singh, learned counsel appearing for the Respondents.

5. Mr. Tulsi referred to the Preamble, the long title and the various provisions of the RTI Act to impress upon the Court that the general purpose of the RTI Act was to promote transparency and accountability and contain corruption in the government and its instrumentalities. The Preamble further indicated that the expectation was that revelation of information which might lead to conflict with other public interests including “efficient operations of the Government” had to be harmonized “while preserving the paramountcy of the democratic ideal”. It is accordingly submitted that the RTI Act was not intended to apply to institutions like the Petitioner.

6. Turning to Section 2(h) of the RTI Act, Mr. Tulsi submitted that the words “and includes any” occurring after Section 2(h)(d) had to be read continuously and, therefore, even if a body fell within the definition of a Public Authority under Section 2(h) (a) to (d), such a body would have to be substantially financed “directly or indirectly by funds provided by the appropriate Government”. In other words, according to Mr. Tulsi, there cannot be any disjunctive reading of the latter portion of Section 2(h) and that it had to be read as one continuous whole. He submits that if the definition is so read then certainly the Petitioner, which may have been established by a law made by the Parliament, was not a public authority, since it did not receive funds “directly or indirectly” from any appropriate Government.

7. Mr. Tulsi placed reliance on the Judgment of the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in Nagar Yuwak Shikshan Sanstha v. Maharashtra State Information Commission in support of his submissions. Referring to the provisions of the DSG Act, Mr. Tulsi submitted that the Petitioner was intended to be an autonomous statutory body without interference by the Government. Relevant to the RTI Act, Mr. Tulsi has placed reliance upon the decisions of other High Courts including Asian Education Charitable Society v. State of Uttarakhand, The Public Information Officer and Secretary v. Karnataka State Information Commission 2009 (6) KarLJ 2009, Dattaprasad Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. v. Karnataka State Chief Information Commissioner AIR 2009 Kant 1, The Bidar District Center Co-op Bank Ltd. v. Karnataka Information Commission ILR 2008 KAR 3830, Dr. Panjabrao Deshmukh Urban Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. The State Information Commission AIR 2009