A body is classified as a public authority under the RTI Act if it is substantially financed and controlled by the government, emphasizing transparency in public administration.

JUDGMENT :

Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari, J.

Heard Sri.S.Sreekumar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant with Adv.Sri.S.Harikrishnan, and Sri.M.Ajay and Sri.Paul Jacob, learned counsel appearing for respondents.

2. Taking into consideration the facts and the similitude of the controversy involved in these batch of appeals, they have been heard analogously and decided by this common judgment.

3. The facts of W.A No.45 of 2023 are taken up for consideration for deciding the batch of appeals.

4. The present appeals arise against the final judgment dated 02.12.2022 passed by the learned Single Bench of this Court in W.P.(C) No. 20387 of 2019 and connected cases (Cochin International Airport Ltd. v. The State Information Commission & Another), wherein the Court after undertaking a meticulous analysis concluded that the Cochin International Airport Authority Ltd. (for short, ‘CIAL’), is a ‘public authority’ within the confines of Sec. 2(h)(d)(i) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (for short, ‘RTI Act’) and therefore amenable to obligations of disclosure of information held by it to third parties and public at large, approaching it for divulging various heads of information sought by them vide the applications filed under Sec. 6 of the RTI Act.

5. The CIAL in these appeals filed under Sec. 5 of the KERALA HIGH COURT ACT , 1958 and Rules assails the aforesaid judgment primarily on the ground that as per the ingredients of Sec.2(h)(d)(i) of the RTI Act, they are neither being ‘owned’, ‘controlled’, nor ‘substantially financed’ by the agency of the Government. We shall advert to contentions at length a little later, however for the present purpose, suffice to state that CIAL contends that it is not ‘State’ under Article 12 of the Constitution of India (for short, ‘ COI ’), being bereft of the trappings of a 'State', as explicated in the judgments of Ajay Hasia & Ors. v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi & Ors [ (1981) 1 SCC 722 ] and other trail of precedents of the Supreme Court following and developing the said concept.

6. The respondents on the other hand, which are the State Information Commission, Kerala (for short, ‘SIC, Kerala’) and Johny Antony, one of the applicants seeking disclosures under the RTI Act, contend that CIAL is to be classified as a ‘public authority’ under the RTI Act, amenable to binding obligations of disclosure resting upon them in terms of the transparency enactment.

7. The arguments and contentions of the respondents shall also be referred to at length a little later at the appropriate stage.

ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION

8. In view of the similitude of controversy and overlapping subject matter of the entire batch of writ appeals, it would be condign to frame the issues of our consideration and resolution at the outset, so as to cut short the prolix arguments made by the contesting parties in the course of prolonged hearings. The following issues arise for our consideration, which shall be answered herein below:

I. Whether CIAL owes its existence to a notification issued or order made by the ‘appropriate government’, thus satisfying the first leg for the applicability of Sec. 2(h)(d)(i);

II. Whether CIAL can be treated as a body/entity ‘owned’ or/ and ‘controlled’ by the appropriate government, in a manner to treat it as an authority answerable to the public at large and third parties under the RTI Act;

III. Whether CIAL can be treated as an organisation/ entity ‘substantially financed’ by the appropriate government, possessing a direct/ indirect financial and