The Karnataka High Court has clarified the scope of Section 2(h) of the Right to Information Act, 2005, holding that a private educational institution receiving less than 85% grant-in-aid from the government does not qualify as a 'public authority' under the Act. This judgment reinforces the principle that mere financial assistance, unless substantial, does not bring an institution within the purview of the RTI Act, providing crucial guidance for similar cases involving grant-in-aid institutions.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, The Principal, Basaveshwar Engineering College, Bagalkot, challenged an order dated 13.08.2013 passed by the Karnataka Information Commission (KIC) in KIC 2487 PTN 2013. The KIC had directed the petitioner to disclose information under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act), treating it as a 'public authority' under Section 2(h) of the Act. The petitioner contended that it was not a grant-in-aid institution to the extent required to attract the provisions of the RTI Act.
Key Facts
- The petitioner, Basaveshwar Engineering College, is a private engineering college in Bagalkot.
- Certain departments of the college have received grant-in-aid from the State Government since 1968, but the institution as a whole does not receive more than 85% of its funding from the government.
- The Karnataka Information Commission passed an order on 13.08.2013, directing the petitioner to comply with the RTI Act as a 'public authority'.
- The petitioner filed an affidavit before the High Court, asserting that it does not receive financial assistance exceeding 85% from the State Government.
Procedural History
- 13.08.2013: Karnataka Information Commission passed the impugned order in KIC 2487 PTN 2013, treating the petitioner as a 'public authority'.
- 2013: The petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 83570 of 2013 before the Karnataka High Court, challenging the KIC order.
- 12.09.2025: A Coordinate Bench of the Karnataka High Court disposed of W.P. No. 145155/2020 (GM-RES), involving the same petitioner-institution. The Court directed the petitioner to file an affidavit clarifying its financial dependence on the State Government.
- Post-12.09.2025: The petitioner filed an affidavit stating that it does not receive more than 85% grant-in-aid from the government.
- 07.07.2026: The present judgment was delivered by the Karnataka High Court, allowing the writ petition.
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought:
- Quashing of the impugned order dated 13.08.2013 passed by the Karnataka Information Commission.
- A declaration that the petitioner is not a 'public authority' under Section 2(h) of the RTI Act, 2005.
The Legal Issue
The central question before the Court was whether a private educational institution receiving less than 85% grant-in-aid from the State Government falls within the definition of a 'public authority' under Section 2(h) of the RTI Act, 2005.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
- The petitioner contended that it is not a grant-in-aid institution to the extent required to be classified as a 'public authority' under the RTI Act.
- It relied on the judgment in W.P. No. 145155/2020 (GM-RES), where the High Court had held that the petitioner does not receive more than 85% grant-in-aid and thus does not qualify as a 'public authority'.
- The petitioner argued that the impugned order was unsustainable in light of the Coordinate Bench's decision.
For the Respondents
- The Karnataka Information Commission (R1) and the Vice Chancellor, Visveshwaraya Technological University (R2) argued that the petitioner, being substantially financed by the State Government, qualifies as a 'public authority' under Section 2(h)(d)(i) of the RTI Act.
- Respondent No. 3 (Sadashiv S/o. Sidrama Kembavi) supported the KIC's order, contending that the petitioner must comply with the RTI Act.
The Court's Analysis
The Court relied heavily on the judgment in W.P. No. 145155/2020 (GM-RES), which involved the same petitioner-institution. The Coordinate Bench had examined Section 2(h) of the RTI Act, 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 Coordinate Bench's judgment, which analyzed the Supreme Court's decision in Thalappalam Service Co-operative Bank Limited & Others v. State of Kerala & Others. The Supreme Court had held:
"48. Merely providing subsidies, grants, exemptions, privileges etc., as such, cannot be said to be providing funding to a substantial extent, unless the record shows that the funding was so substantial to the body which practically runs by such funding and but for such funding, it would struggle to exist... But, there are instances, where private educational institutions getting ninety-five percent grant-in-aid from the appropriate government, may answer the definition of public authority under Section 2(h)(d)(i)."
The Coordinate Bench had noted that the petitioner's affidavit asserted it does not receive more than 85% grant-in-aid. Based on this, the Bench concluded that the petitioner does not fall within the definition of a 'public authority' under Section 2(h) of the RTI Act.
The present Court observed that the issue was no longer res integra, as the Coordinate Bench had already determined the status of the petitioner-institution. Thus, the impugned order passed by the Karnataka Information Commission could not be sustained.
The Verdict
The Karnataka High Court allowed the writ petition and passed the following orders:
- The impugned order dated 13.08.2013 passed by the Karnataka Information Commission in KIC 2487 PTN 2013 was quashed and set aside.
- All further proceedings initiated pursuant to the impugned order were annulled.
- No order as to costs was passed.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Substantial Financing Is the Key Test
- The judgment reaffirms that mere receipt of grants or subsidies does not automatically bring an institution within the ambit of Section 2(h) of the RTI Act. The financing must be substantial, typically exceeding 85-95%, for an institution to qualify as a 'public authority'.
- Practitioners must focus on quantifying the extent of financial assistance received by an institution from the government to determine its status under the RTI Act.
Affidavit Evidence Holds Weight
- The Court relied on the affidavit filed by the petitioner, which clearly stated that it does not receive more than 85% grant-in-aid. This underscores the importance of documentary evidence in establishing factual claims before the Court.
- Institutions seeking to avoid classification as 'public authorities' should maintain detailed records of their funding sources and file affidavits to support their claims.
Precedent Is Binding on Similar Institutions
- The judgment highlights that once a Court has determined the status of an institution in a previous case, the same institution cannot be subjected to contradictory orders in subsequent proceedings.
- This principle provides certainty and finality to institutions regarding their obligations under the RTI Act, reducing the scope for repeated litigation on the same issue.
Implications for Grant-In-Aid Institutions
- Private colleges, cooperatives, and NGOs receiving partial funding from the government must assess whether their funding crosses the threshold of 85-95% to determine their liability under the RTI Act.
- Institutions falling below this threshold may challenge directives from information commissions that treat them as 'public authorities'.
