Sanchayita Lahkar

The High Court of Jharkhand Division Bench of Justice Sujit Narayan Prasad and Justice Rajesh Kumar held that an educational institution receiving substantial financial assistance from the State Government qualifies as a "public authority" under Section 2(h) of the Right to Information Act, 2005. The Court upheld the Jharkhand State Information Commission's directive requiring the college to furnish information sought under the RTI Act. It dismissed the college's appeal and affirmed the order of the Single Judge, which had declined to interfere with the Commission's directive. Consequently, the Court confirmed the obligation of the college to disclose the information requested under the RTI Act.

The appellant in the case is St. Joseph’s College, located at Torpa, District Khunti, Jharkhand. The college is established under the aegis and control of the Khunti Catholic Diocese, a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. The appeal arose against the order dated 2 May 2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No. 6689 of 2016, which upheld the directive of the Jharkhand State Information Commission.

Also Read: Suspicion Cannot Replace Proof In Criminal Trial | Supreme Court Acquits Man Of Murder As Prosecution Fails To Prove Who Pulled The Trigger

The matter originated with an application dated 14 September 2015 filed by Respondent No. 2, Professor Akshay Kumar Rai, who was a professor at the appellant college. The application, filed under the Right to Information Act, 2005, sought the following information:

(a) Copy of the Audit Report for the periods 2011-12 to 2014-15;

(b) Copy of the Utility Certificate for the periods 2011-12 to 2014-15;

(c) Proceedings of the Minutes of the Governing Body of St. Joseph’s College for the same period;

(d) The rules relied upon by the college for not paying grant-in-aid to teachers working under the Government during 2012-13 to 2014-15.

The college, through its Principal cum Public Information Officer, declined to furnish the requested information. It contended that it was not a "public authority" under Section 2(h) of the RTI Act and invoked Section 8 to argue that the information sought was exempt.

Following this, Respondent No. 2 filed a second appeal on 1 February 2016 before the Jharkhand State Information Commission. The appeal was registered as Appeal Case No. 334 of 2016. The Commission issued a notice of hearing to the college, which reiterated its stand that it was not a "public authority" and hence not liable to disclose the information.

However, in its decision dated 30 September 2016, the Jharkhand State Information Commission held that since the college receives aid from the Government of Jharkhand, it is obligated to provide information under the RTI Act.

Aggrieved by this decision, the college filed W.P.(C) No. 6689 of 2016. The main grounds raised before the learned Single Judge were:

1. The college is a minority institution recognized by the National Commission for Minority Educational Institutions.

2. It is not controlled or substantially financed by the State Government and hence does not fall within the meaning of "public authority."

3. The college receives only a scanty fraction of funds as grant-in-aid, insufficient to render it a public authority under the RTI Act.

In opposition, counsel for the Respondents contended that the college qualifies as a public authority under Section 2(h)(i) of the RTI Act because it receives grant-in-aid under the Jharkhand State Unaided Educational Institution (Grant) Rule, 2004. The Single Judge upheld the Commission's order and dismissed the writ petition.

The college then preferred the present Letters Patent Appeal under Clause 10, again asserting that it does not fall within the scope of the RTI Act. The appeal reiterated its claim that the financial aid received was neither controlling nor substantial and cited the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Thalappalam Service Cooperative Bank Limited v. State of Kerala, (2013) 16 SCC 82.

In response, the Respondents argued that the grant-in-aid received by the college from the State Government was indeed substantial and that the institution was, therefore, a public authority required to comply with the RTI Act. They also cited the Supreme Court's judgement in D.A.V. College Trust and Management Society v. Director of Public Instructions to assert that even financial assistance less than 50% could be considered substantial if the quantum is materially significant.

The Division Bench considered the statutory framework and judicial precedents. It referred to the object and intent of the Right to Information Act, 2005 and stated:

"The Right to Information Act is an Act to provide for setting out the practical regime of right to information for citizens to secure access to information under the control of public authorities, in order to promote transparency and accountability in the working of every public authority."

The Court quoted from Bihar Public Service Commission v. Saiyed Hussain Abbas Rizwi, (2012) 13 SCC 61: "It was aimed at providing free access to information with the object of making governance more transparent and accountable."

Discussing the definition under Section 2(h) of the RTI Act, the Court stated: "Information can also be sought from non-statutory bodies/NGOs if they are owned, controlled or substantially financed by appropriate Government... The definition of ‘public authority’ under Section 2(1)(h) RTI Act does not talk of ‘deep and pervasive’ control. It is enough if it is shown that the authority is ‘controlled’ by the central government."

The Court held that: "Any authority or body or institution of self-government established or constituted, and by notification issued or order made by state legislature, if owned, controlled or substantially financed, such institution will come under the fold of public authority."

The Division Bench examined the financial aid received by the college and  It observed: "The financial aid is substantial and hence applying the ratio in the case of Thalappalam... or D.A.V. College Trust..., the college in question will come under the fold of Section 2(h) of the Act 2005."

On the appellant’s reliance on the Thalappalam case, the Court noted: "The judgment rendered in the case of Thalappalam... although is not applicable, but even in the said judgment, it has been laid down... that in a case if the materials to show that they are owned, controlled or substantially financed by the appropriate Government, then Section 2(h) of the RTI Act 2005, will be applicable."

Further, the Court cited Palser v. Grinling (1948 AC 291), as referenced in Thalappalam, to elucidate the meaning of “substantial”: "Substantial” means “solid, massive, etc... actual, existing, positive and real to a substantial extent, not moderate, ordinary, tolerable, etc."

Also Read: Bombay High Court Permits Medical Termination Of 25-Week Pregnancy | Recognizes Woman’s Mental Health And Reproductive Autonomy Under Article 21

The Bench concluded: "The learned Single Judge has taken into consideration the implication of Section 2(h) as also the receiving of grant in aid by the State Government under the provision of 2(h)(d)(i)... Therefore, has came to the conclusion... holding further that... the writ petitioner college can be termed as a public authority."

The Division Bench issued the following final direction:

"This Court based upon the discussion made hereinabove, is of the view that the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge, therefore, suffers from no error as requires no interference. Accordingly, the instant appeal stands dismissed."

"Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, also stands disposed of."

Advocates Representing the Parties:

For the Appellants: Mr. Prakhar Harit, Advocate

For the State: Mr. Yogesh Modi, AC to AAG-IA

For the Jharkhand State Information Commission: Mr. Sanjoy Piprawall, Advocate

For the Respondent: Mr. Vishal Kr. Rai, Advocate

Case Title: St. Joseph’s College v. Jharkhand State Information Commission & Others

Neutral Citation: 2025: JHHC:16367-DB

Case Number: L.P.A. No. 358 of 2024

Bench: Justice Sujit Narayan Prasad, Justice Rajesh Kumar