2015 (9) TMI 1250 - HC - Indian Laws

Scope of RTI Act - applicability on RTI Act on deemed universities under the scope of University Grants Commission Act, 1956 - Held that - When the word includes is used in the definition, the legislature does not intend to restrict the definition, it makes the definition enumerative and not exhaustive, that is to say, the term defined would retain its ordinary meaning but its scope would be extended to bring within the term certain matters which in its ordinary meaning, it may or may not comprise. 2007 (4) TMI 354 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA In view of above, argument advanced by learned Counsel for petitioners that petitioner No. 2 cannot be included within the ambit of public authority as provided under Section 2(h) of the Right to Information Act, 2005, is not acceptable and is devoid of substance. - Decided against the petitioner.

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether a deemed university falls within the definition of a "public authority" under the Right to Information Act, 2005.
2. Whether the petitioner is obligated to furnish information as requested by Respondent No. 3.
3. Whether the notification declaring a deemed university establishes it as a "public authority."
4. Whether the petitioner No. 1 is required to provide information as per the Act.

Issue 1:
The petitioners contested the direction from the University Grants Commission under the Right to Information Act, arguing that as a separate trust and educational institution not receiving government aid, they are not bound to provide the requested information. The Act defines a "public authority" under Section 2(h), encompassing institutions established by the appropriate government, including those substantially financed. The court held that the establishment of the deemed university by a notification from the Central Government aligns it with the definition of a "public authority" under the Act.

Issue 2:
The petitioners contended that since they do not receive financial aid from the government and operate on a no-grant basis, they are not obligated to furnish information. However, the court ruled that under Section 2(h)(d) of the Act, institutions established by the appropriate government are considered public authorities, irrespective of direct financial assistance. The court rejected the argument that financial support is a prerequisite for classification as a "public authority."

Issue 3:
The court emphasized that the notification issued by the Central Government declaring the petitioner as a deemed university establishes it as a public authority under the Right to Information Act. The court clarified that the inclusion criteria under Section 2(h) do not mandate direct financial support from the government for classification as a public authority if the institution is established by the appropriate government, as in this case.

Issue 4:
Regarding the status of petitioner No. 1, the court noted that the direction for information pertained only to petitioner No. 2, a separate entity declared as a deemed university. As the challenge was against petitioner No. 2 alone, the court did not delve into the status of petitioner No. 1. The court directed petitioner No. 2 to comply with the information request in line with the provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005.

In conclusion, the court dismissed the writ petition, discharging the rule without any order as to costs. The court rejected the request for further protection and upheld the obligation of petitioner No. 2 to provide the requested information under the Right to Information Act.