Private Schools Are Not 'Public Authorities' Under RTI Act; Information Commission Cannot Direct Them To Display Fee Structure: Madras High Court

"The mere 'supervision' or 'Regulation' as such by a statute or otherwise of a body would not make that body a 'public authority' within the meaning of Section 2(h) of the RTI Act," Madras High Court, in a significant ruling, has held that private educational institutions do not fall within the definition of a "public authority" under the Right to Information Act, 2005.

A single-judge bench of Justice M. Dhandapani observed that such institutions are neither owned, controlled, nor substantially financed by the government, and therefore the State Information Commission lacks the jurisdiction to issue sweeping legislative directions to them. The court noted that while transparency in fee structures is essential, the Information Commission cannot usurp regulatory powers to mandate disclosures by private entities.

The case arose when the Tamil Nadu Information Commission (SIC) issued a slew of directions ordering all private schools, including CBSE and aided institutions, to conspicuously display their fee structures on notice boards and websites. This order followed an RTI application seeking fee particulars of private schools in Coimbatore, which was eventually escalated to the SIC. Aggrieved by the SIC's order and a consequential circular issued by the Director of Private Schools, the All India Private Educational Institutions Association moved the High Court.

The primary question before the court was whether private educational institutions fall within the ambit of ‘public authority’ as defined under Section 2(h) of the RTI Act. The court was also called upon to determine whether the State Information Commission exceeded its jurisdiction by passing legislative-style directions for fee disclosure and appointing a new Public Information Officer.

Court Explains The Exhaustive Definition Of Public Authority

The Court meticulously analyzed Section 2(h) of the RTI Act, which defines "public authority." Relying on the Supreme Court's landmark judgment in Thalappalam Ser. Co-op. Bank Ltd. v. State of Kerala, the bench noted that the definition is exhaustive and covers bodies established by the Constitution, Parliament, State Legislature, or government notifications. It also includes bodies owned, controlled, or substantially financed by the government.

The bench observed that private educational institutions are established and managed by private trusts or societies without direct state funding. The court clarified that the mere fact that these schools are affiliated with a statutory board or regulated by state laws does not automatically transform them into public authorities.

Statutory Supervision Is Not Substantial Control

A crucial distinction was drawn between "regulation" and "substantial control." The court held that for a body to be a public authority under the RTI Act, the government's control must be of a substantial nature, rather than merely supervisory or regulatory. The bench emphasized that the management and affairs of private schools are handled by their respective committees, not by government-appointed officials.

The judges noted that powers exercised by state education officials are regulatory in nature, intended to ensure standards, but do not amount to dominating the management. Consequently, the court held that private schools cannot be brought under the RTI framework through administrative caveats or executive instructions.

Bold Pull-Quote: "The control by the appropriate government must be a control of a substantial nature. The mere 'supervision' or 'Regulation' as such by a statute or otherwise of a body would not make that body a 'public authority' within the meaning of Section 2(h) of the RTI Act."

Information Commission Exceeded Jurisdictional Mandate

The Court came down heavily on the State Information Commission for passing "sweeping directions" that went far beyond the subject matter of the original RTI application. It held that the SIC’s jurisdiction under Section 19(3) is limited to adjudicating specific cases and directing the provision of information, rather than issuing general regulatory mandates to private entities.

The bench observed that Section 4(1)(b) of the RTI Act, which requires the suo motu publication of information, applies only to public authorities. By directing private schools to comply with this section, the SIC acted beyond its legal empowerment. The court termed such directions as being in the nature of "subordinate legislation," which is a power vested only in the Legislature and the Executive.

Penalty On Education Officials Set Aside As Unjust

The Court also addressed the penalties of Rs. 25,000 imposed by the SIC on education officials and the compensation awarded to the complainant. It held that since the information sought pertained to private schools—which are not public authorities—the RTI proceedings themselves lacked a foundation. Therefore, mulcting officials for failing to provide information they did not possess was deemed arbitrary and unjust.

The bench noted that the details regarding fee structures were only available with the private schools and not with the Director of Private Schools at the time of the request. Consequently, the court set aside the portion of the SIC order imposing penalties and show-cause notices on the government officials.

Fee Display Requirement Valid Under Private Schools Rules 2023

In a nuanced turn, while the court struck down the SIC’s order, it refused to quash the circular issued by the Director of Private Schools in its entirety. The bench pointed out that Rule 17(3) of the Tamil Nadu Private Schools (Regulation) Rules, 2023, already mandates every private school to display its fee structure and other infrastructure details on notice boards and websites.

The court held that although the Director’s circular was purportedly issued to implement the SIC's "illegal" order, the Director independently possessed the regulatory power under the 2023 Rules to mandate such disclosures. Therefore, the requirement for schools to display fees remains valid as a statutory obligation under the state’s education laws, even if the RTI Act does not apply.

Bold Pull-Quote: "The private schools cannot abdicate its responsibility and try to wriggle out of its commitment to the society... the said circular being very much within the statutory framework of the Rules... the 2nd respondent is bound to ensure that Rule 17 (3) is followed by the private schools in letter and spirit."

Extraordinary Power Of High Court To Enforce Statutory Mandates

Invoking its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, the High Court directed all private schools recognized under the Private Schools Act to display the fees fixed by the Fee Determination Committee. The court emphasized that such disclosure is a "benevolent provision" that helps parents make informed decisions without "burning their pockets."

The bench concluded that while the Information Commission's path to the order was legally flawed, the end goal of transparency in school fees must be upheld through the correct statutory channel. The court ordered that fee structures must be updated and displayed at school entrances and on websites at least one month before the commencement of every academic year.

The writ petition was disposed of by setting aside the SIC's penalties and modifying the disclosure directions to be enforced under the Private Schools Act rather than the RTI Act. This ruling clarifies that regulatory transparency does not equate to being a 'public authority' under the transparency law.

Date of Decision: 08 July 2026