SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 12301

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
MOHAMMED NIAS C.P., J
SREE AVITTAM THIRUNAL HOSPITAL HEALTH EDUCATION SOCIETY – Appellant
Versus
KERALA STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 30443 OF 2025



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SHRI.R.S.SARAT
For the Respondents: SRI. M. AJAY

A society not receiving government funding or control is not deemed a public authority under the RTI Act, as established by inconsistent previous decisions by the information commission.

Headnote:The petitioner, a society operating under the Travancore Cochin Literary, Scientific, Cultural and Charitable Society Act of 1955, contends that it is not a public authority under Section 2(h)(c) of the RTI Act, 2005, as earlier determinations by the Kerala State Information Commission had found otherwise. The Court notes past inconsistencies in the Commission's rulings and directs the respondent to reconsider the status of the society after hearing from both parties, taking into account relevant judgments. The writ petition is granted, setting aside the prior order and allowing the petitioner to present its case.

Table of Content
1. society status under rti act. (Para 1)
2. prior inconsistent rulings. (Para 2)
3. direction for reconsideration by the commission. (Para 3)

J U D G M E N T

The petitioner is a Society formed under the Travancore Cochin Literary, Scientific, Cultural and Charitable Society Act of 1955, for the betterment of the infrastructure facilities of Sree Avittom Thirunal Hospital, a Government Hospital, specially catering to women and children. The petitioner complains that despite the Society functioning without any Government control, ownership or funding from the Government, through Ext.P6 order, the 1st respondent found that the petitioner is a public authority, coming within the ambit of Section 2(h)(c)

of the RTI Act, 2005 .

2. The petitioner also says that on earlier occasions, with respect to the same Society, the 1st respondent had found in Ext.P4 and Ext.P5 that it will not come under the definition of a Public authority.

3. Taking note of the contrary views taken by the 1st respondent, Kerala State Information Commission, I am inclined to set aside Ext.P6 with a direction to the 1st respondent to pass fresh orders after hearing the petitioner and the 2nd respondent. The principles of law stated by the Supreme Court in the judgment in D.A.V College Trust and Management Society and Others Vs. Director of Public Instructions and Others [2019 (4) KHC 840] shall also be adverted to while taking a decision. It will be open to the parties to place such materials to substantiate their contentions, which shall be adverted to by the 1st respondent, while taking a decision, as directed above.

The impugned order is set aside, and the writ petition is allowed as above.

SD/-

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top