Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + HC Indian Laws - 2023 (4) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (4) TMI 159 - HC - Indian LawsScope of RTI - private unaided educational institution - Information sought under threat - imposition of penalty upon the Principal and compensation under the provisions of the Act as well as de-recognition of the college by the AICTE, New Delhi - HELD THAT:- Undoubtedly, the co-operative societies were constituted under the State Co-operatives enactments. However, they were neither owned nor substantially financed by the State. The question of whether the societies were controlled by the State was discussed extensively from paragraphs 36 onwards of the SCC report. The Court held that the meaning of the expression ‘control’ must be tested in the context of the RTI Act and not in any other context i.e., neither in the context of the expression ‘State’ under Article 12 of the Constitution of India nor in the context of maintainability of the writ petition against a body or authority under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Since the term ‘control/controlled’ has not been defined in the RTI Act, they proceed to understand the scope of the expression set in context of the prior and subsequent terms i.e. in the context of a ‘body owned’ and ‘substantially financed’. The overarching conclusion that has been arrived at by the Courts is thus to the effect that private unaided schools do not constitute ‘public authorities’ that are amenable to the provisions of the RTI Act. There is however, a caveat - It cannot be disputed that educational institutions, whether private or public, perform a critical public function, being the dissemination of education. Hence, there must be, and the Court agrees with R1 on this, scrutiny of the manner and mode of such dissemination, and the quality maintained by the institutions. For this purpose, though not a public authority, they would still come within the ambit of the RTI Act, although by strict application of the provisions of Section 11 of the Act. Thus the caveat is answered to state that where information sought for by a querist, relates to an authority that is not a ‘public authority’, but a private one rendering public functions or in respect of which a public information officer holds information, such a request may be considered at the discretion of the officer, strictly in line with the procedure set out under Section 11 of the Act - the impugned order is set aside. This writ petition is allowed.
|