Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(CIC) 2319
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Shri Heeralal Samariya, CJ
Shri Neeraj Sharma – Appellant
Versus
PIO, Ministry of Home Affairs – Respondent
Second Appeal No. CIC/MHOME/A/2021/609248
For the Appellants/Petitioners:
The Shri Ram Janmbhoomi Teerth Kshetra Trust is not a public authority under the RTI Act due to lack of governmental control and funding.
Headnote:(A) Right to Information Act, 2005 - Section 2(h) - Public Authority - Appellant sought information regarding the appointment of officials for a trust created by the Central Government as per Supreme Court directions. The PIO’s response was found lacking per RTI provisions, necessitating a revised point-wise response. (Paras 4, 10, 11)
(B) Public Authority definition - Court ruled that the Trust is not a public authority under Section 2(h) of the RTI Act based on its lack of government control or financial backing. The analysis highlighted that the Trust operates independently as directed by the Supreme Court. (Paras 35-36)
Facts of the case:
The Appellant filed an RTI application seeking information about the Shri Ram Janmbhoomi Teerth Kshetra Trust, which was constituted per Supreme Court directions but claimed not to be a public authority as per the RTI Act.
Findings of Court:
The PIO must provide a revised response; the Trust does not qualify as a public authority.
Issues: The primary issue is whether the Trust falls within the definition of public authority under Section 2(h) of the RTI Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court noted that non-compliance with the RTI Act’s provisions concerning the PIO’s response rendered the initial reply invalid. The Trust functions independently of governmental control or financing.
Result: The appeal is disposed of with the observation that the Trust is not a public authority.
Information sought and background of the case:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 19.01.2021 seeking information on the following points:-
2.1 “Please provide the details of Central public information officers and First Appellate Authority for the public authority "Shri Ram Janmbhoomi Teerth Kshetra" created by notification CG-DL-E-05022020-215935 dated 5 February 2020. According to RTI section 5 of RTI act CPIO & FAA should be appointed within 100 days.”
The CPIO & Director (NI), Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi vide letter dated 28.01.2021 replied as under:-
“2. This is to inform you that undersigned is Central Public Information Officer in respect of Ayodhya Section of JKL Division of Ministry of Home Affairs. This is further to mention here that Shri Ram Janambhoomi Teerth Kshetra Trust has been constituted by the Government of India as per the directions of Hon’ble Supreme Court given in its judgment dated 09.11.2019 in C.A. No. 10866-67 of 2010 vide notification dated 05.02.2020. The said Trust is an autonomous organisation/body.”
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 24.02.2021. The FAA vide order dated 08.03.2021 upheld the reply of CPIO.
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
A written submission dated 30.06.2022 has been received from the CPIO/DS(Arms & NI/Ayodhya) reiterating aforementioned PIO’s reply. The Complainant had filed an online First Appeal dated 24.02.2021 which had also been decided by FAA’s order dated 08.03.2021 upholding the PIO’s reply and stating that: CPIO is bound to provide only that information which is available with him. It is important to note that only such information can be supplied under the Act which is available and existing and in held by the public authority or is held under the control of the public authority. The Public information officer in not supposed to create information or to do research on behalf of any citizen.
Records of the case reveal that the instant case with three other connected cases had been heard by the Bench of the erstwhile Chief Information Commission on 04.07.2022, and decided as under:
“Upon perusal of the facts of the case, the Commission is of the considered opinion that the reply of the PIO is not in consonance with the provisions of the RTI Act because though information sought by the Applicant has not been provided to him, none of the provisions of the RTI Act has been cited for the tacit denial. Therefore, the reply sent by the PIO is found untenable in law.
Under the circumstances, the Commission directs Shri Harish Kumar Wadhwa, CPIO and Dy Secretary, Arms and NI/ Ayodhya, M/o Home Affairs to re-examine the RTI application and provide a revised point wise response strictly in accordance with the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 to the Applicant within three weeks of receipt of this order. The Respondent shall submit a compliance report in this regard alongwith necessary proof of service by 31.07.2022. It is made clear that non-compliance of these directions shall attract penal action, as per law.
The aforementioned cases are disposed off accordingly.”
In compliance of the aforementioned directions of the Commission, the PIO, JKL Division/Ayodhya Section, MHA sent a communication dated 28.07.2022 to the Complainant stating as under:
(1) The information sought by you is not held in this office.
(2) Further, section 2(h) of RTI Act, 2005 defines "Public Authority" as 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 -
(1) body owned, controlled or substantially financed;
(ii) non-Government organization substantially financed, directly or indirectly by funds provided
