Non-governmental organisations (NGOs) substantially funded by the government are subject to Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act), the Supreme Court has ruled.
The Apex Court in the judgment held that NGOs substantially financed by the appropriate Government fall within the ambit of ‘public authority’ under Section 2(h) of the RTI Act.
The appellants before the Court were colleges or associations running the colleges/ schools. Their claim was that NGOs are not covered by the RTI Act. According to the appellants, the objective of the Act was to cover only Government and its instrumentalities which are accountable to the Government.
It was urged that the words ‘public authority’ in RTI Act means any authority or body or institution and such body or institution must be constituted under the Constitution, or by any law of Parliament, or the State Legislature or by a notification issued by the appropriate Government.
It was submitted that unless a specific notification is issued, in terms of clause (d), no body or institution outside the ambit of clauses (a) to (c) of Section 2(h) can be deemed to be a public authority.
Section 2(h) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 is as follows:
“Public authority” means any authority or body or institution of self-government established or constituted,—
a) by or under the Constitution;
b)by any other law made by Parliament;
c)by any other law made by State Legislature;
d)by notification issued or order made by the appropriate Government, and includes any:-
(i) body owned, controlled or substantially financed;
ii)Non‑Government Organisation substantially financed, directly or indirectly by funds provided by the appropriate Government;
The Court proceeded to analyse the scope of Section 2(h) which defines the term “public authority”.
It noted that the bodies and NGOs mentioned in sub-clauses (i) and (ii) in the second part of the definition are in addition to the four categories mentioned in clauses (a) to (d), the Court held. Clauses (a) to (d) cover only those bodies etc., which have been established or constituted in the four manners prescribed.
By adding an inclusive clause in the definition, Parliament intended to add two more categories, the first being in sub-clause (i), which relates to bodies which are owned, controlled or substantially financed by the appropriate Government.
As far as sub-clause (ii) is concerned it deals with NGOs substantially financed by the appropriate Government. Here, only the financial aspect is important.
By specifically bringing NGOs it is obvious that the intention of the Parliament was to include these two categories mentioned in sub-clauses (i) and (ii) in addition to the four categories mentioned in clauses (a) to (d).
The main objective of the RTI Act is to have transparency in the working of Government organizations. The NGOs which are working due to the funds provided by the Government should be covered within the preview of the concerned Act.
Therefore, the Court held that it has no hesitation in holding that an NGO substantially financed, directly or indirectly, by funds provided by the appropriate government would be a public authority amenable to the provisions of the RTI Act.