2010 (1) TMI 978 - HC - Indian Laws

Whether the writ petitioners are Public Authorit(ies) within the meaning of the term under Section 2(h) of the said Act? Held that - On a consideration of all the factors, this court holds that the school fulfils the essential elements of being a non-government organization, under Section 2(h) of the Act, which is substantially financed by the Central Government, through various departments, and agencies. It is therefore, covered by the regime of the Act. Educating, clothing and providing shelter, employment and basic health care to all the people are non- derogable priorities. The model chosen by the government of ensuring spread of welfare and its benefits, include functioning through non-government agencies, who are tasked and assisted for this purpose. The crucial role of access to information here cannot be understated. It is in this context that Section 2 (h) recognizes that non-state actors may have responsibilities of disclosing information which would be useful, and necessary for the people they serve, as it furthers the process of empowerment, assures transparency, and makes democracy responsive and meaningful. In view of the above conclusions, in relation to each petition, the court holds that the reliefs sought cannot be granted; each of the petitioners is a public authority, and therefore bound to give effect to provisions of the Act. They are granted 30 days time to set up appropriate mechanisms to enable access to information held and required to be held by them

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the Indian Olympic Association (IOA) is a "Public Authority" under Section 2(h) of the Right to Information Act.
2. Whether the Organizing Committee of the Commonwealth Games, 2010 (Games Committee) is a "Public Authority" under Section 2(h) of the Right to Information Act.
3. Whether the Sanskriti School is a "Public Authority" under Section 2(h) of the Right to Information Act.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Indian Olympic Association (IOA) as a Public Authority:

Contentions and Facts:
- The IOA argued it is an autonomous body, not controlled by the government, and primarily funded through various sources including the International Olympic Committee, sponsorships, and donations.
- The Central Government provides limited assistance, primarily for specific events and travel expenses, which are directly paid to service providers.

CIC's Decision:
- The CIC determined IOA to be a public authority, noting substantial government funding, with government grants constituting about 80% of its expenditure in some years.
- The CIC emphasized that being a public authority under the RTI Act does not compromise IOA's autonomy but ensures transparency.

Court's Analysis:
- The IOA is the national representative of the Olympic movement in India, affiliating national sports bodies and selecting participants for international events.
- Financial records showed consistent government funding, crucial for IOA's functioning.
- The court concluded that the IOA, due to its significant public role and substantial government financing, qualifies as a public authority under the RTI Act.

2. Organizing Committee of the Commonwealth Games, 2010 (Games Committee) as a Public Authority:

Contentions and Facts:
- The Games Committee claimed autonomy, asserting that the Central Government's financial assistance was in the form of loans, not grants, and it was not a permanent body.
- The Central Government committed substantial funds and agreed to meet any shortfall, with the Games Committee owning the conduct of the games and benefiting from revenues generated.

Court's Analysis:
- The Games Committee received substantial advances from the Central Government, with conditions that included the waiver of interest on loans if there were no surpluses.
- The court noted that the substantial funding and the nature of the financial arrangements indicated significant government involvement.
- The court held that the Games Committee is a public authority under the RTI Act due to the substantial financial support and the public nature of its activities.

3. Sanskriti School as a Public Authority:

Contentions and Facts:
- The school argued it was a private, unaided institution, managed by the Civil Services Society, without government control.
- It received one-time capital grants from various government departments and concessional land allotment.

CIC's Decision:
- The CIC declared the school a public authority, citing substantial initial government grants and the involvement of senior civil servants' spouses in its management.

Court's Analysis:
- The school received over Rs. 24 crores in grants from various government departments, with conditions including preferential admissions for wards of government employees.
- The land allotment at nominal rates provided a significant advantage over other private schools.
- The court concluded that the school, benefiting from substantial government financing and fulfilling conditions imposed by the government, qualifies as a public authority under the RTI Act.

Conclusion:
Each petitioner (IOA, Games Committee, and Sanskriti School) is deemed a public authority under the Right to Information Act, 2005, due to substantial government financing and their significant public roles. They are required to establish mechanisms for information dissemination as mandated by the Act within 30 days. The petitions were dismissed without any order on costs.

← Previous Next →