Transparency Tangle: When Are Public Trusts Running Aided Institutions Subject to RTI? Maharashtra HC Full Bench Clarifies

Mumbai: In a significant ruling aimed at resolving conflicting interpretations, a Full Bench of the Maharashtra High Court has clarified the extent to which Public Trusts, particularly those operating educational institutions receiving government grants, fall under the purview of the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005.

The core question before the Bench was whether a Public Trust registered under the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950 (MPT Act), which runs an institution receiving state grants, is duty-bound to provide information under the RTI Act.

The necessity for the Full Bench arose from a divergence in previous High Court judgments. One set of decisions held that only the grant-receiving institution, not the Trust or Society itself, was a 'public authority' under Section 2(h) of the RTI Act, thus limiting access to information specifically about the institution's affairs. Conversely, another set of judgments opined that because the Trust/Society controlled the aided institution and had access to state funds flowing to it, information regarding the Trust/Society could also be sought under the RTI Act.

Arguments Presented

Counsel for the petitioner Trust argued that the Trust itself did not fall within the definition of 'public authority' under Section 2(h) as it was not established or controlled by the government. They contended that grants were provided to the educational institutions as a matter of state policy for aided institutions generally, not specifically to the Trust, and this funding, along with regulatory supervision by the Charity Commissioner under the MPT Act, did not make the Trust a 'public authority'.

Conversely, opposing counsel and the Assistant Government Pleader submitted that the substantial finance provided by the state to the institutions controlled by the Trust was sufficient to render the Trust a 'public authority' under Section 2(h)(i) of the RTI Act, making it subject to the Act's disclosure requirements.

Legal Framework and Analysis

The Full Bench meticulously examined the definitions of 'public authority' (Section 2(h)) and 'information' (Section 2(f)) under the RTI Act, as well as the nature of Public Trusts under the MPT Act and relevant Supreme Court precedents.

Citing Thalappalam Service Cooperative Bank Ltd. vs. State of Kerala , the Court reiterated that mere regulatory or supervisory control by a statutory authority (like the Charity Commissioner under the MPT Act) does not make a body a 'public authority' under Section 2(h). The control must be "substantial control over the management and affairs of the body." Public Trusts, generally created by trust deeds rather than statute, are primarily private bodies.

Regarding "substantially financed," the Bench referenced both Thalappalam and D.A.V. College Trust and Management Society vs. Director of Public Instructions . Thalappalam held that substantial finance means the body "practically runs by such funding and but for such funding, it would struggle to exist," noting that general subsidies or grants might not suffice unless substantial. D.A.V. College Trust clarified that "substantial" means a large portion, not necessarily over 50%, and includes indirect finance like land at concessional rates. Crucially, D.A.V. College Trust distinguished between the Society/Trust and the educational institutions it ran, holding the institutions were public authorities due to substantial finance, but not automatically the Society itself.

Applying these principles, the Full Bench reasoned that grants provided by the state to educational institutions as a uniform policy, even if substantial for the institution, do not automatically qualify the Public Trust running them as 'substantially financed' for the purposes of Section 2(h), unless the Trust itself has directly benefited from substantial government largesse (like concessional land) for its own aims and objects. The control exercised by the Trust over the institution is a consequence of its role as the governing body, not necessarily state control as envisaged under Section 2(h).

The Bench also considered Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, which defines "information" to include "information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law." Relying on SCI vs. Subhash Chandra Agarwal , the Court acknowledged that information about a private body (like a Public Trust) could be obtained under the RTI Act if a public authority (like the Charity Commissioner) is legally empowered to access that information under another law (like the MPT Act).

The Full Bench's Answer

Based on this detailed analysis, the Full Bench answered the question with specific conditions:

1. Information about the Public Trust itself: There is no obligation to supply this information if the Public Trust does not fall within Section 2(h)(i) (owned, controlled, or received substantial government largesse/land for its own objects). Whether it meets these criteria is a question of fact for the Information Commissioner.
2. Information about Institutions run by the Trust: If the information sought relates to an Educational or other Institution run by the Public Trust, then information can be directed to be supplied if the institution itself is found to be substantially financed by the State. This extent of financial support is also a question of fact for the Information Commissioner.
3. Role of the Charity Commissioner: The Charity Commissioner is not legally obliged to supply information about the Public Trust collected under the MPT Act if such information falls under the exempted category (e.g., Section 8(j) personal information without public interest) or if the Charity Commissioner lacks statutory backing under the MPT Act to collect/disclose that specific information. However, information submitted to the Charity Commissioner under the MPT Act that is not exempted under Section 8 of the RTI Act and is in the Commissioner's custody can be supplied by that authority.

This judgment brings clarity to a previously debated area, emphasizing the distinction between the legal status of a Public Trust and the institutions it administers, and setting clear parameters for RTI applicability based on which entity is the subject of the information request and the nature/source of government funding or control.