Temples do not qualify as 'Public Authorities' under the Right to Information Act as they are neither owned nor substantially financed by the government; mere public contributions do not equate to governmental funding.

ORDER :

MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ, J.

The common question that arises for consideration in this batch of writ petitions is as to whether a temple constituting a “Religious Institution”, within the meaning of Section 6(18) of the TAMIL NADU HINDU RELIGIOUS AND CHARITABLE ENDOWMENTS DEPARTMENT ACT , 1969 (hereinafter referred to as “HR & CE Act”) would qualify as a “Public Authority”, in terms of the definition under Section 2 (h) of Right to Information Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as 'RTI Act').

2. The challenge in this batch of writ petitions is to the impugned Circular dated 27.03.2012, insofar as it designates trustees of the petitioner temples under the administration / governance of HR and CE Department, as “Public Information Officer” under RTI Act. The challenge is primarily on the premise that the temples do not qualify as a “Public Authority” within the meaning of Section 2 (h) of the RTI Act.

3. We shall refer to the facts pertaining to Sri Muthumariamman Temple in W.P.(MD).No.552 of 2024, for the purposes of deciding the common question that arises for consideration in these writ petition viz., whether temples qualify as “Public Authority” within the meaning of Section 2 (h) of the RTI Act.

3.1. The petitioner is the hereditary trustee of Thayamangalam Muthumariamman Temple (hereinafter referred to as 'subject Temple'). The petitioner was appointed as hereditary trustee on 11.04.2001, after the demise of his father, who was the earlier trustee. The Muthumariamman Temple is a temple and a Public Religious Institution within the meaning of Section 6(18) read with Section 6(20) of the HR&CE Act. On assuming office, the petitioner found that requests were made seeking information under the provisions of RTI Act, some of which related to internal administration of the temple. The petitioner had enquired with the 2^nd respondent viz., the Joint Commissioner as to the applicability of the RTI Act and was directed by the 2^nd respondent to furnish the information in view of the impugned Circular dated 27.03.2012, whereby hereditary trustees were designated as Public Information Officer (hereinafter referred to as “PIO”) of the RTI Act.

4. The impugned Circular is challenged on the premise that the subject temple does not qualify as “Public Authority” within the meaning of Section 2 (h) of the RTI Act. To the contrary, the learned Additional Government Pleader for the Respondents would submit that the challenge to the impugned Circular must be rejected on the premise that it is made after almost 8 years. Further, the temples also receive offerings by the devotees through hundial collection and would come within the purview of RTI Act thereby under an obligation to furnish information in terms of RTI Act.

5. Before proceeding further it may be relevant rather necessary to refer to the definition of Public Authority in terms of Section 2 (h) of the RTI Act, 2005:

“2.Definitions.—In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires:

.....

(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 indi