MACT | Fraud Vitiates All Judicial Acts, Even Without Specific Review Powers: Rajasthan High Court    |     Right of Private Defense Cannot Be Weighed in Golden Scales: Madhya Pradesh High Court Acquits Appellant in Culpable Homicide Case    |     Pre-Arrest Bail Not a Right but an Exception: Himachal High Court Denied Bail In Dowry Death Case"    |     Service Law | Similarly Situated Employees Cannot Be Denied Equal Treatment: PH High Court Orders Regularization    |     Presumption of Innocence Remains Supreme Unless Clearly Overturned: PH High Court Affirming Acquittal    |     Any Physical Liaison with A Girl Of Less Than Eighteen Years Is A Strict Offense.: Patna High Court Reiterates Strict Stance On Sexual Offences Against Minors    |     Orissa High Court Rules Res Judicata Inapplicable When Multiple Appeals Arise from Same Judgment    |     Mandatory Section 80 Notice Cannot Be Bypassed Lightly:  Jammu & Kashmir High Court Returns Plaint for Non-Compliance    |     Bombay High Court Denies Permanent Lecturer Appointment for Failing to Meet UGC Eligibility Criteria at Time of Appointment    |     Deferred Cross-Examination Gave Time for Witness Tampering, Undermining Fair Trial: Allahabad High Court    |     Dowry Death | Presumption Under Section 113-B Not Applicable as No Proof of Cruelty Soon Before Death : Supreme Court    |     Land Acquisition | Jaiprakash Associates Ltd. (JAL) Liable for Compensation under Supplementary Award, Not Ultra-Tech Cement Ltd.: Supreme Court    |    

Public Trusts Under RTI: Distinct from Educational Institutions They Run, Bound by RTI Based on Financial Support from State - Bombay High Court

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


The Bombay High Court clarifies the application of the Right to Information (RTI) Act to Public Trusts and educational institutions managed by them. The key issue was whether Public Trusts registered under the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act 1950, and running institutions receiving state grants, are duty-bound to supply information under the RTI Act 2005.

The appeal raised the question of whether a Public Trust, receiving state grants for its institutions, falls within the scope of 'public authority' under the RTI Act, thereby obligating it to provide requested information. The court examined several previous judgments reflecting discordant views on the issue, focusing on the distinction between Public Trusts and the educational institutions they administer.

The Court differentiated between Public Trusts and their educational institutions. It was observed that Public Trusts are not created by statute but are recognized and registered based on their trust deed, making them largely private bodies. The Court emphasized that only if these Trusts or their institutions receive substantial financing from the State do they come under the ambit of RTI. Justice Gharote noted, "The educational institutions, owing their existence to the Public Trust, do not automatically make the Trust a public authority under the RTI Act."

The Court further observed that financial assistance to educational institutions must be evaluated in the context of state policy and the extent of financing. It clarified that merely receiving state grants does not make a Public Trust a 'Public Authority' under RTI unless it is substantially financed by the government.

The Court held that a Public Trust is not obligated to supply information under the RTI Act unless it falls within Section 2(h)(i), implying substantial state financing or control. Educational institutions managed by Public Trusts may fall under RTI if state financing is substantial. The Charity Commissioner is not bound to provide information collected under the Maharashtra Public Trust Act if it falls under exempted categories of the RTI Act.

Decision Dated - 1st March 2024.

"People Welfare Society vs State Information Commissioner & Ors." -

Similar News