#public authority

The Supreme Court ruled that the Registrar's statutory power under Sections 65 and 66 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act to access society documents for RTI purposes is not contingent on a prior subjective satisfaction to hold an inquiry. This ensures members of cooperative societies can obtain records such as construction agreements and general body minutes through the RTI route without the Registrar first initiating a formal inquiry.

Karnataka High Court holds that Century Club, operating on land granted by the erstwhile Mysuru Maharaja, qualifies as a 'Public Authority' under the RTI Act due to indirect State financing. The ruling expands transparency obligations to private entities benefiting from public resources, setting a precedent for similar cases.

Karnataka High Court rules that a private engineering college receiving less than 85% grant-in-aid is not a 'public authority' under Section 2(h) of the RTI Act, 2005, quashing orders of the Karnataka Information Commission.

Karnataka High Court clarifies that private colleges receiving less than 85% grant-in-aid do not qualify as 'public authorities' under the RTI Act, quashing the Information Commission's order. The ruling establishes a quantitative threshold for grant-in-aid dependency, impacting transparency obligations for aided institutions.

Allahabad HC sets aside flat allotment cancellation under the One Time Settlement (OTS) Scheme, holding that pandemic and bereavement constitute valid hardships warranting equitable relief. The court directed the Gorakhpur Development Authority to allow the petitioner one week to avail the OTS benefit, reinforcing natural justice principles in public authority decisions.

The Himachal Pradesh High Court ruled that when a public authority admits liability in its written statement, it cannot later invoke limitation as a defence in appeal - reinforcing the principle that the State must act with fairness and consistency. This sets a binding standard for all government entities in civil litigation, ensuring they cannot exploit procedural technicalities after conceding the merits.

Delhi High Court rules that insured individuals can obtain LIC policy details under the RTI Act even without a policy number, provided they furnish identifying details like name, DOB, and NEFT. The judgment underscores that public authorities must facilitate information access when sufficient alternative identifiers are available, reinforcing the RTI Act's purpose of transparency.

Madhya Pradesh High Court reaffirms that res judicata bars public authorities from revisiting final judicial orders on land allotment, quashing a ₹49.27 crore demand as arbitrary. The ruling reinforces judicial finality in administrative disputes, protecting parties from repeated litigation on settled matters.

The Bombay High Court holds that receipt of state grants alone does not transform a private trust into a public authority under the RTI Act, reinforcing that only entities under substantial state control or financing are subject to disclosure obligations. This clarifies the legal boundary for thousands of trusts and NGOs receiving government funds, ensuring RTI applies only where public accountability is truly embedded.

Rajasthan High Court ruled that universities cannot impose processing fees exceeding the statutory limits under the RTI Act Rules 2012 for providing answer book copies. The court held that a ₹1,000 processing fee per answer book violates Section 7 of the RTI Act, reinforcing fee caps to ensure public access to information without undue financial burden.

The Central Information Commission holds that cooperative housing societies functioning under Delhi Cooperative Societies Act are public authorities under RTI Act, 2005, and must comply with disclosure obligations.

Bombay High Court holds that land regularization cannot proceed without proof of ownership, directing NIT to explain sanction of map and file detailed affidavit.

Bombay High Court holds that cooperative banks are not public authorities under RTI Act, clarifying scope of disclosure obligations and limiting access to internal governance records.