The main legal principle established in the judgment is that bodies like PMNRF, established and controlled by the appropriate government, qualify as 'public authorities' under the RTI Act, and are required to provide information in the public interest.

S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.

Facts

1. The question for consideration in this appeal is whether Prime Minister's National Relief Fund (“the Fund/Appellant”) is a “public authority” within the ambit of Section 2(h) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (“RTI Act”). The learned single judge held that it was, upholding the decision of the authorities under the Act.

2. The respondent in the appeal (hereafter “the petitioner”) in 2011, applied to the CPIO, Prime Minister's Office (“CPIO”) for information pertaining to the various transactions made PMNRF during the financial year 2009-2010 and 2010-2011 (“Information Period”). The CPIO, provided some of the information sought; the CPIO however invoked the exemption under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, as regards information related to amount, name and particular of each recipient, beneficiary and donor during the information period. Aggrieved the petitioner appealed under Section 19(1) of the Act to the Appellate Authority. The Authority directed the CPIO to send a fresh response to the petitioner, which was duly complied with; the petitioner, aggrieved, preferred a second appeal before the Chief Information Commissioner (“CIC”) under Section 19(3). The CIC then passed a final order directing the CPIO to place the details of institutional donors of the PMNRF in public domain and to disclose the information to the petitioner. Aggrieved, the Fund preferred a writ petition (W.P. (C) No. 3897/2012) before this Court.

3. The Learned Single Judge found the CIC's order to be balanced, and dismissed the appeal. However, while passing the impugned judgment dated 19.11.2015, the learned Single Judge refrained from giving a conclusive finding as to whether the appellant was a public authority. Aggrieved by the decision of the Learned Single Judge, the Appellant filed the present appeal.

CONTENTIONS

4. The Fund contends that PMNRF is not obliged to provide any information to the Respondent as it is not a “public authority” under the ambit of Section 2(h) of the RTI Act. Second, the information sought by the respondent is exempt under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act as it relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity and that it causes unwarranted invasion of the privacy of individuals. With regards to the first ground, the Fund contends that PMNRF is a private fund comprising of voluntary donations made by individuals and institutions and is not a business of the Central Government. Therefore no right to information can be enforced against it. The Fund further contends that PMNRF does not owe its establishment to an order of the government and does not receive any funds or finances by the government, thus, it is not a public authority under Section 2(h) of the RTI Act. It was also contended that while passing the impugned judgment the Learned Single Judge had failed to consider that the appellant finds its genesis in a personal appeal made through a press note dated 24.01.1948 by the then Prime Minister, Pt. Jawahar Lal Nehru. This, according to the Fund, was a personal appeal/request/decision and not an order/decision made by the Government of India. The Fund further contended that this appeal/request/decision was not a decision of the Central Government and was thus not made in the name of the Hon'ble Governor General of India, the head of Central Executive as was then required for decisions of Central Government.

5. The Appellant further contends that no question as regards to the operations of PMNRF are permitted to be made in the parliament in terms of Rule 47(2)(viii) and 47(2)(xviii) of the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in Rajya Sabha and Rule 41(2)(viii) and 41(2)(xvii) of Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in Lok Sabha respectively. It is so because PMNRF does not owe its genesis to a decision/function of Central Executive under Sections 7, 8 or 17 of the Government of India Act, 1935 (which is in pari materia to Artic