Summary
Educational institutions disputed coverage under the Right to Information Act as substantially financed NGOs. The Court held that such NGOs form an additional category of public authority and need no special notification bringing them within the Act. Substantial financing is a contextual factual inquiry, not a fixed majority-percentage test. It affirmed coverage of the D.A.V. institutions on their funding record and remitted the other institutions’ cases for fresh determination.
Issues
- Whether substantially government-financed NGOs were covered independently of the four constitution-or-establishment categories.
- How substantial financing was to be assessed.
- Whether the individual educational institutions satisfied that test.
Provisions considered
- Section 2(h), Right to Information Act, 2005The inclusive definition separately covered substantially financed NGOs; direct and indirect support had to be assessed on the facts of each institution. (¶¶ 3, 15, 16, 17, 18, 22, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37)
Held
- The definition contains four establishment-based categories and two additional inclusive categories. A substantially financed NGO need not be established by statute or government notification, and the notification mentioned in clause (d) concerns establishment rather than a special declaration of RTI coverage. (¶¶ 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24)
- Substantial does not invariably mean majority or more than half. The size, significance and dependence on support matter, including indirect assistance through free or heavily discounted land; no rigid numerical rule determines every case. (¶¶ 25, 26, 27, 28, 29)
- The D.A.V. colleges and school received considerable grants covering roughly forty to forty-four per cent of total expenditure, with the State meeting almost all staff salaries. That support for their essential teaching functions established substantial financing. The other institutions required fuller factual examination. (¶¶ 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37)
Result
Civil Appeal No.9828 of 2013 was dismissed, affirming the D.A.V. institutions’ public-authority status. The other specified appeals were remitted to the High Court to determine substantial financing after permitting both parties to file documents, with priority as writ petitions filed in 2013.