The Air Force Sports Complex is not a public authority under the RTI Act as it lacks substantial government control and financing, operating independently without performing public functions.

JUDGMENT 

SANJEEV NARULA, J.

1. The present case raises a fundamental question regarding the applicability of the Right to Information Act, 2005[“RTI Act”] to institutions that are beyond conventional governmental bodies. Specifically, the Court is tasked with determining whether the Air Force Sports Complex (AFSC) falls within the definition of a ‘public authority’ under Section 2(h) of the RTI Act, thereby necessitating the appointment of a Public Information Officer (PIO) and a First Appellate Authority in compliance with the provisions of the RTI Act.

THE FACTUAL BACKGROUND

2. Lt. Gen. S.S. Dahiya, the Respondent,[Since contesting Respondent is only Respondent No. 1, accordingly, he is referred to as “the Respondent” hereinafter.] is a retired officer of the Indian Air Force. He filed an RTI application dated 22nd February 2011, addressed to the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Air HQ, Vayu Bhavan, New Delhi, seeking information regarding alleged misuse and commercial exploitation of lands under the AFSC, Air Force Station, New Delhi. The application posed 55 questions, including several pertaining to the internal functioning of AFSC. In response, the CPIO provided a para- wise reply based on the records available. However, it was contended that since AFSC did not fall within the definition of ‘public authority’ under Section 2(h) of the RTI Act, the provisions of the statute would not be applicable to it.

3. Dissatisfied with the response, the Respondent filed an appeal before the First Appellate Authority, which was dismissed through order dated 21st June, 2011, on the grounds that all available information had already been provided as per the records of the public authority. In the meantime, on 5th July 2011, the Respondent also filed another application with the PIO, seeking further information regarding the alleged misuse and commercial exploitation of AFSC land, which was responded to vide letter dated 16th August, 2011.

4. In such circumstances, the Respondent filed a second appeal under Section 19 of the RTI Act against the aforenoted order dated 21st June, 2011, before the Central Information Commission (CIC). This was referred to a full bench consisting of the Chief Information Commissioner and two Information Commissioners (LS and SS). Through order dated 25th October, 2011, the appeal was allowed. The CIC held that AFSC qualified as a ‘public authority’ under Section 2(h) of the RTI Act, and accordingly directed the CPIO to provide the information requested by the Respondent.

5. Aggrieved by this order, the Petitioner filed a writ petition [W.P.(C) 741/2012], which was disposed of through order dated 10th February 2014. The Court set aside the impugned order dated 25th October, 2011 on the ground that AFSC had not been impleaded as a party, which amounted to violation of principles of natural justice. Consequently, the matter was remanded to the CIC for reconsideration, with the rights and contentions of all parties left open.

6. Pursuant to this Court’s directions, the CIC reconsidered the matter and passed the impugned order dated 19th June, 2014[“Impugned Order”]. The CIC once again concluded that AFSC is a ‘public authority’ under Section 2(h)(d)(i) of the RTI Act, and further directed the appointment of a Public Information Officer and a First Appellate Authority.

CONTENTIONS OF THE PARTIES

7. Mr. Ankur Chibber, counsel for the petitioner, raises the following contentions to challenge the Impugned Order of the CIC:

7.1. The Petitioner, AFSC, is a private body established for the fitness, health, and recreation of Air Force personnel. It operates under its own rules and bylaws, governed by a Governing Council, and is autonomous, without government control. Consequently, Section 2(h)(d)(i) of the RTI Act, which mandates a body to be controlled by the government to qualify as a public authority, is not applicable to AFSC.

7.2. The case of AFSC is covered by the judgment in  Air Vice Marshal J.S. Kumar v. Govern