2026 Supreme(Mad) 993

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J.
The Public Information Officer - Petitioner
Versus 
State Information Commissioner - Respondent
W.P.No.44029 of 2025, W.M.P.No.49135 of 2025
Decided On : 04-06-2026

A public body or statutory trustee is not exempted from the Right to Information Act under the fiduciary relationship clause when maintaining accounts and registers required by law. Such records are subject to public disclosure to ensure transparency and accountability, overriding restrictive mechanisms found in older special statutes.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 19(1)(a) and Article 21 - Right to Information Act, 2005 - Section 2(h), Section 8(1)(e) - Official Trustees Act, 1913 - Section 22 - Right to know is an essential ingredient of a free and open government and is inherent in the fundamental rights of freedom of speech and expression and personal liberty. (Paras 40-42)

(B) Right to Information Act - Public Authority - Statutory body created by central legislation, subject to audit and financial control by the government, falls within the definition of 'Public Authority' and must ensure transparency unless an express exemption applies under Section 8. (Paras 35-39, 47-49)

(C) Fiduciary Relationship - Information held by a statutory trustee in the course of discharging official duties does not constitute information held in a fiduciary relationship, particularly when such information is subject to mandatory audit and government scrutiny. (Paras 49-53)

(D) Statutory Construction - Right to Information Act, 2005, through its non-obstante clause (Section 22), overrides provisions of prior special enactments that seek to restrict disclosure of public records. (Paras 61-64)

Facts of the case:
An applicant sought details regarding a public charitable trust administered by a state-appointed official trustee, including audit reports, balance sheets, and property registers. The trustee refused disclosure, citing the fiduciary nature of the office, specific exemptions under the Right to Information Act, and the existence of alternative modes of obtaining information via High Court procedures or existing statutory mechanisms under the governing trust legislation.

Findings of Court:
The court observed that the records maintained by the official trustee in the discharge of statutory duties regarding the management of trust assets are not held in a confidential fiduciary capacity. Since the government exercises administrative and financial control over the office and mandates periodic audits, these institutional records must be transparent and accessible to beneficiaries and the public.

Issues: Whether the official trustee, as a public authority, is bound to disclose financial and management records under the Right to Information Act, and whether such information is exempted under the claim of fiduciary relationship or the existence of alternative statutory inspection modes.

Ratio Decidendi: Information generated and maintained by a statutory official trustee in the exercise of public duties is not covered by the 'fiduciary relationship' exemption under the Right to Information Act. The statutory command for transparency, bolstered by the overriding effect of the Right to Information Act, requires the disclosure of financial and administrative records to ensure institutional accountability in public interest.

Result: Writ petition dismissed with costs.

Table of Content
1. factual background of the rti request regarding a public charitable trust. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10)
2. arguments concerning fiduciary duty, exemption under rti, and administrative oversight. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16)
3. examination of the official trustees act, 1913, governing transparency and audit obligations. (Para 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34)
4. standard for determining whether the official trustee is a public authority. (Para 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43)
5. defining the scope of fiduciary relationship exclusion under rti section 8(1)(e). (Para 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 58)
6. determining the overriding effect of the rti act over legacy legislation. (Para 59 , 60 , 61 , 62 , 63 , 64)
7. analysis of precedent concerning institutional records versus court records. (Para 65 , 66 , 67 , 68 , 69 , 70)
8. distinction between judicial records and statutory institutional records for disclosure. (Para 71 , 72 , 73)

ORDER :

V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J.

1.The petitioner is the Public Information Officer cum Administrator General and Official Trustee of the State of Tamil Nadu. The present writ petition relates to scope of the Right to Information Act as applicable to the Official Trustee of Tamil Nadu, an office created by virtue of the Official Trustees Act, 1913.

2.One of the several trusts administered by the Official Trustee of the State of Tamil Nadu is the V.Thiruvengadathan Chetty Charities Rao Bahadur V.Thiruvengadathan Chetty, a prominent and prosperous member of the Arya Vysya Community, had executed a “WILL” on 09.11.1941. In terms of the “WILL”, the Official Trustee of the Tamil Nadu was to act as the executor and trustee. The said “WILL” was a subject matter of probate proceedings before this Court in O.P.No.109 of 1942. Probate was granted to the Administrator General of the Tamil Nadu. Subsequently, by an order of this Court dated 07.04.1977 in Application No.942 of 1977 in O.P.No.109 of 1942, the estate of Rao Bahadur V.Thiruvengadathan Chetty was transferred to the office of the Official Trustee of Tamil Nadu.

3.One of the objects of V.Thiruvengadathan Chetty Charities is for educational advancement of the economically weaker members of that community. The 2^nd respondent herein claims to be a member of the Arya Vysya Community. In the capacity of being a member of that community, he filed applications invoking Section 6(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005, on 17.08.2023. He sought the following information from the office of the Official Trustee:-

“1.Provide a copy of all the orders issued by the Honourable Madras High Court / any other competent authority in O.P.No.109 of 1942.

2.Provide the copy of Rao Bahadur V. Thiruvengadanatha Chetty’s Will, dated 09.11.1941.

3.Kindly provide the copy of order dated 07.04.1977 in Application No.942 of 1977 in O.P.No.109 of 1942 pertaining to this trust.

4.Provide a copy of the following documents pertaining to this trust.

4.a. Balance Sheet of last five financial years.

4.b. Audit Report of Last Five Financial years.

4.c. Immovable property register.

4.d. Demand, Collection and Arrear details of each property.”

4.The Official Trustee, responded to the said request on 15.09.2023. The following was the reply:-

Since the information in Sl.Nos.2 and 4 were not provided, the 2^nd respondent preferred an appeal to the appellate authority, namely, the Registrar General of this Court.

5.The appellate authority passed an order on 18.10.2023. In that order, after adverting to the facts, the appellate authority referred to the judgment of the Supreme Court in CBSE and another Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay and others , (2011) 8 SCC 497 and came to the conclusion that the order of the official trustee is valid.

6.Challenging the same, the 2^nd respondent preferred an appeal dated 17.08.2023 to the 1^st respondent – Tamil Nadu State Information Commission (TNSIC)

Click Here to Read the rest of this document