The Karnataka High Court has clarified the threshold for determining whether a grant-in-aid institution qualifies as a 'public authority' under Section 2(h) of the Right to Information Act, 2005. Relying on a coordinate bench decision involving the same petitioner-college, the Court held that an institution receiving less than 85% financial assistance from the government does not fall within the definition of a public authority, thereby quashing the orders of the Karnataka Information Commission.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Basaveshwar Engineering College, Bagalkot, challenged multiple orders passed by the Karnataka Information Commission (KIC) directing it to disclose information under the RTI Act. The College contended that it is not a 'public authority' as defined under Section 2(h) of the RTI Act, 2005, despite receiving grant-in-aid from the State Government since 1968 for certain departments. The dispute arose from RTI applications filed by Sadashiv S. Kembavi, an Assistant Professor, seeking information related to his employment and disciplinary proceedings.
Key Facts
The petitioner-college has been receiving grant-in-aid from the State Government for specific departments since 1968
The college filed an affidavit stating that it does not receive more than 85% financial assistance from the government for running the institution
Sadashiv S. Kembavi filed RTI applications seeking details of his employment, disciplinary proceedings, and other related information
The Karnataka Information Commission passed orders in KMA 1227 COM 2014, KMA 7136 DOORU 2012, and KIC 7136 PTN 2012, directing the college to disclose the requested information
The college challenged these orders through three writ petitions:
WP No. 30012 of 2016: Challenging order dated 14.03.2016 in KMA 1227 COM 2014
WP No. 76140 of 2013: Challenging order dated 14.12.2012 in KMA 7136 DOORU 2012
WP No. 104675 of 2014: Challenging order dated 11.03.2014 in KIC 7136 PTN 2012
Procedural History
14.12.2012: Karnataka Information Commission passed order in KMA 7136 DOORU 2012, directing disclosure
11.03.2014: KIC passed order in KIC 7136 PTN 2012, directing disclosure
14.03.2016: KIC passed order in KMA 1227 COM 2014, directing disclosure
2013-2016: Petitioner filed three writ petitions challenging the KIC orders
12.09.2025: Coordinate Bench of Karnataka High Court disposed of WP No. 145155/2020, involving the same petitioner-college, holding that the college is not a 'public authority' under the RTI Act
07.07.2026: Present judgment passed by the High Court
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought:
Quashing of the impugned orders passed by the Karnataka Information Commission
A declaration that the petitioner-college is not a 'public authority' under Section 2(h) of the RTI Act, 2005
Annulling of all proceedings initiated pursuant to the impugned orders
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether a private engineering college receiving grant-in-aid from the State Government, but less than 85% of its total funding, qualifies as a 'public authority' under Section 2(h)(d)(i) of the RTI Act, 2005 and is thereby obligated to disclose information under the Act.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner-college is not a grant-in-aid institution in its entirety, despite receiving financial assistance for certain departments since 1968
The college filed an affidavit stating that it does not receive more than 85% financial assistance from the government
Reliance was placed on the judgment in WP No. 145155/2020, where a coordinate bench of the High Court held that the same college is not a 'public authority' under the RTI Act
The impugned orders of the Karnataka Information Commission are unsustainable as the college does not meet the threshold of 'substantially financed' under Section 2(h)(d)(i)
For the Respondents
The respondents argued that the college, having received grant-in-aid from the government, falls within the definition of a 'public authority' under the RTI Act
The Karnataka Information Commission contended that the college is obligated to disclose information sought by Sadashiv S. Kembavi under the RTI Act
The Court's Analysis
The Court relied heavily on the coordinate bench decision in WP No. 145155/2020, which involved the same petitioner-college. The earlier judgment had examined Section 2(h) of the RTI Act, 2005, which defines a 'public authority' as:
"(h) 'Public Authority' means any authority or body or institution of self-Government established or constituted...(i) body owned, controlled or substantially financed;(ii) non-Government organization substantially financed, directly or indirectly by funds provided by the appropriate government."
The Court extracted paragraphs 4 to 10 of the earlier judgment, which analyzed the definition and applied the precedent set by the Supreme Court in Thalappalam Service Co-operative Bank Limited & Others v. State of Kerala & Others. The key observations were:
For an institution to be considered a 'public authority', it must be substantially financed by the government
The Supreme Court, in Thalappalam, held that merely receiving subsidies or grants does not amount to 'substantial financing' unless the institution practically runs on such funding and would struggle to exist without it
The coordinate bench had taken note of the affidavit filed by the petitioner-college, which stated that it does not receive more than 85% financial assistance from the government
Applying the test laid down in Thalappalam, the coordinate bench concluded that the petitioner-college does not qualify as a 'public authority' under Section 2(h)(d)(i) of the RTI Act
The present Court observed that the issue was no longer res integra (a settled matter) as the coordinate bench had already determined the status of the petitioner-college. Since the college does not fall within the definition of a 'public authority', the impugned orders of the Karnataka Information Commission could not be sustained.
The Verdict
The Court allowed the writ petitions and passed the following orders:
The impugned orders passed by the Karnataka Information Commission in KMA 1227 COM 2014, KMA 7136 DOORU 2012, and KIC 7136 PTN 2012 were quashed and set aside
All further proceedings initiated pursuant to the impugned orders were annulled
No order as to costs was passed
What This Means For Similar Cases
The 85% Threshold for 'Substantial Financing'
The judgment establishes that an institution receiving less than 85% financial assistance from the government is not substantially financed and does not qualify as a 'public authority' under Section 2(h)(d)(i) of the RTI Act
Practitioners must now argue that mere receipt of grants or subsidies is insufficient to bring an institution within the ambit of the RTI Act unless the institution is practically dependent on such funding
Affidavit Evidence is Crucial
The Court relied on the affidavit filed by the petitioner-college, which stated that it does not receive more than 85% financial assistance
Institutions seeking to avoid disclosure obligations under the RTI Act must provide clear evidence of the extent of government funding they receive
Affidavits should be detailed and specific, indicating the percentage of funding and the departments or activities covered
Precedent Binding on Coordinate Benches
The judgment underscores that once a coordinate bench has settled a legal issue, subsequent benches are bound by the precedent unless it is overruled by a higher court
Practitioners can rely on earlier judgments of the same court to argue that an issue is no longer res integra
This principle is particularly useful in cases involving identical parties or factual matrices
