Case comment:

D.A.V. College Trust and Managing Society &Ors. Vs. Director of public
instructions

FACTS OF THE CASE:

The case at hand is a civil petition filed by schools and colleges before the Supreme Court of
India. In that instance, the respondent-initiated proceedings under the Right to Information
Act of 2005, but the appellant contended that they did not fall within the definition of 'public
authority' under section 2(h). The appeal is filed in order for a reasonable government to
determine the major funding of non-governmental groups within the scope of public power.

 The appellants in this case are the Chandigarh-based institutions D.A.V College,
M.C.M D.A.V College, and D.A.V Senior Secondary School, while the respondent is
the Director of Public Instructions.
 The appellants were ordered by the latter party to disclose public information about
enrollment, fee revenue, allocation, and teacher and administrative financial figures
under the provisions of the Right to Information Act of 2005.
 The appellants argued that the percentage of money received by the government
directly or indirectly for the operation of their institutions was less than 45% of total
revenue and hence did not constitute a "substantial" portion of their budget income.
 They further contended that the RTI legislation (specifically, section 2(h) of the Act)
only applied to government organs, i.e., "public authority," and that educational
institutions that were not heavily sponsored by the government did not fall under this
category.
 Individual institutions controlled by the appellant filed Civil Appeals No. 9828 of
2013, No. 9860 of 2013, No. 9844-9845 of 2013, and No. 9847-9857 of 2013 in
response to these opposing allegations.

 The Supreme Court decided the final appeal on September 17th, 2019.1

1
D.A.V college trust fund and management society & ors. Vs director of public instructions & ors., law
essentials, (dec,22,2023 , 5:30pm)
https://lawessential.com/case-comments-1/f/dav-college-ors-v-director-of-public-instructions-ors?
blogcategory=Case+Comments
Issue raised:

 Is it accurate that non-governmental organizations (NGOs) that get significant money

from the relevant government fall under the concept of "public authority" as stated in
Section 2(h)[1]?
 Should the definition of "public authority" under Section 2(h) of the Right to
Information Act, 2005[2] be applied?
 Is it necessary for the government to finance a major portion of an NGO's operating
expenditures in order for it to qualify as "substantial financing" under the RTI Act[3]?

Contention:

The D.A.V. College Trust and Managing Society asserted that it was not a "public
authority" as defined by the Right to Information Act, 2005 because it was not owned,
governed, or materially sponsored by the government of India.

The Trust also claimed that the state funding it received did not cover a significant
portion of its operating expenses. According to the Director of Public Instructions, the
Educational Trust received considerable government funding and thus qualified as a
"public authority" under the RTI Act.

The Director further asserted that the Trust's status as a private trust had no influence on
whether it qualified as a "public authority" under RTI Act purposes.

The Supreme Court dismissed the trust's and organization's arguments and concluded that
it qualified as a "public authority" under the RTI Act. The Court determined that the term
"public authority" should be used broadly to refer to any organization or institution that
receives a substantial amount of its funding from the government.

The government assistance obtained by the Educational Trust was declared "substantial"
by the Supreme Court since it covered over 95% of the expenditures associated with
paying the faculty's salaries and other types of compensation. The Court further ruled that
it was immaterial whether the Trust qualified as a "public authority" for the purposes of
the RTI Act because it was a privately owned trust.

According to the Supreme Court, the Right to Information Act of 2005 was enacted to
enhance accountability and openness in all organizations that receive significant money
and grants from the government, regardless of ownership or oversight.

Rationale:

The Supreme Court's decision in this case, which interprets the word "public authority" to
imply any organization or institution that receives significant government support under
the Right To Information Act (RTI Act), indicates how extensively utilized language of
expression is.

This reflects the Act's primary goal of promoting transparency and openness in trusts
receiving big sums from the government. It makes no difference whether one is public or
private, corporate body (whether incorporated under a separate legal personality) or
whether an act has been made requiring it to be truthful in occupying position.

An crucial factor in the Court's decision was its observation that the majority of its
expenses for paying instructors' salaries were covered by large government financing,
which amounted to more than 94 percent. It demonstrated how heavily the Trust relied on
financial help from government agencies.

The Court's decision further demonstrated the importance of the Trust's classification as a
private trust under Private Trust Statute VII.13 in identifying it as an agency or public
authority under RTI Act definition 2 (k). The Act, which is more concerned with the
source of funds than with organizational control or authority.

The Court also stated that the Trust's conduct were consistent with those of the
government. Universities and institutes you can rely on The Court considered the fact that
the Trust's pupils received government financial aid, among other things, to be reasonably
compelling in designating them as a "public authority" under sections 2(h) and (j) of the
RTI Act. The Supreme Court's ruling is being felt in India's Right to Information
advocacy.
 The decision broadens the types of bodies covered by the RTI Act by defining what
constitutes a public body within its purview. It accomplishes this by ensuring that the
public has access to information about how taxpayers' money is spent. It is also terrible
news for organizations that have avoided transparency while getting substantial quantities
of government funding.

These organizations must now retain records and give data on demand, while also
accepting accountability for their activities. This decision has far-reaching repercussions
for India's charity sector. The judgment specifically subjects NGOs that receive a large
amount of government funding to the RTI Act.

As a result, these charitable organizations must be more transparent and make data
available upon request. While this creates challenges, it also provides non-governmental
organizations with an opportunity to boost public trust and demonstrate their ability to
manage public funding.

The Supreme Court of India based its decision on the following cases:

1. The Registrar of Cooperative Societies issued a circular indicating that all cooperative
societies will be liable to the Act in the case of Thalappalam Service Cooperative
Bank Ltd. v. State of Kerala2. The Supreme Court heard arguments over this circular.
The Court concluded that the Act's Section 2(h) outlines the categories it covers. The
first section comprises government-established organizations and institutions. The
second section comprises government-funded organizations and non-governmental
organizations.
2. In P. Kasilingam v. P.S.G. College of Technology & Ors3. the Supreme Court
addressed the interpretation of'means and includes.' The Court concluded that when
both'means' and 'including' are used, the categories listed are exhaustive. This view is
consistent with the Court's previous explanation in DDA v. Bhola Nath Sharma4. As a
2
Indiankanoon, (dec,22,2023, 6:10pm)
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/37517217/
3
Indiankanoon, (dec,22,2023, 6:14pm)
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1443197/#:~:text=By%20its%20judgement%20dated%20December,judgment
%20of%20the%20High%20Court.
4
Indiankanoon, (dec,22,2023, 6:19pm)
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/15173/
 result, in such circumstances, the definitions of these terms must be properly followed
within the framework of the Act.

DEFECTS OF LAW

The term "public authority" is used too liberally. This category may include organizations
that are not directly involved in the execution of governmental authority, which may have a
chilling effect on the right to free association and expression.

The term "public authority" is too narrowly defined. Commercial educational institutions and
hospitals, for example, which have a huge impact on society, may be excluded, jeopardizing
their credibility and openness.

According to the Supreme Court, it is unclear how the Right to Information (RTI) Act should
be applied to firms owned or controlled by the government. As a result, the extent to which
these organizations are governed by the Act has become unclear.

The RTI Act imposes no penalties for noncompliance. As a result, ensuring that the Act is
followed may be difficult.

The RTI Act is not always followed. This is due to a lack of public awareness of the Act, as
well as a lack of funding and political will to see it through.

Interference:

The Superior Court's decision in the D.A.V.College Trust case has some important
implications, namely, that soi versus not-soi structures have been opened up to oppression
and exploitation by two classes of society; one class works for a living at our expense just
like us but will benefit from wrongdoings committed many years before. It also enlarged the
definition of 'public authority' in RTI, stating that those who receive a significant amount of
funding from the national government are compelled to follow it.

This is a significant departure from Gosset's previous, narrower perspective. In general, this
verdict means that organizations within the above-mentioned area will be subject to RTI Act
surveillance. This is, indeed, a positive trend. It will make these organizations more
accountable and transparent, allowing them to regain public trust.
Simply defined, it means that more areas of society now receive government backing and are
transparently available to public scrutiny. All of this is beneficial to our transparency and
accountability as citizens.

Another notable aspect of the Court's decision in the D.A.V College Trust case is that it
expanded the definition of what qualifies as a public authority under the RTI Act, 2005), over
which information about its activity and functioning can be sought through applications for
disclosure (Section 6).

What's notable is that today's determination has nothing to do with the organization being
privately held or created as a trust. This is, however, a significant change from the previous
conception, which highlighted government ownership or authority as the most important
factor. In plain English, as a result of this Court decision, the RTI Act now applies to any
organization receiving major construction expenditures from government sources or
performing important services on behalf of a public authority for which it receives indirect
funding.

It makes no difference whether the entity in question is privately owned or not. In a nutshell,
it broadens the scope of accountability and transparency nets. That is, whether they are
categorized as state institutes or society corporations (unincorporated bodies), institutions
known or unknown by name use taxpayers' money. Our outcomes are fair and transparent. To
participate, you must pay a registration fee.

Third, the Court ruled that in order for government aid or funding to be considered
"substantial financing" under the RTI Act, they do not have to cover a large portion of an
organization's ongoing expenses. As a result, organizations that are only partially or
marginally financed by the government may still be identified as public authority for the
purposes of the RTI Act.

This case is very important to many people in India's Right to Information movement. This
ruling plainly suggests that the scope of the Act's provisions requiring Genesis India or its
sister organizations to furnish information in response to receipt is now extended not just to
larger entities but also to institutions governed at multiple levels.
It would thus serve to refine and solidify what had previously been left somewhat ambiguous
in terms of who qualifies as a public authority under Section In a word, this decision
promotes the public's right and need to examine how tax dollars are used. It is a significant
step toward more transparency in organizations of all sizes, as well as accountability for their
administrative authority. Perhaps most crucially, the court's decision is a significant success
for India's "Right to Information" movement.

The fast track will aid in the full and successful implementation of the Right to Information
Act (RTI) in order to increase transparency, accountability, and righteousness throughout
India. This is an important mechanism for putting governments and their agencies up against
the wall in terms of what they do and what happens as a result.5

VeeramReddy malakonda Reddy

IFIM LAW SCHOOL.

5
D.A.V college trust fund and management society & ors. Vs director of public instructions & ors.,thelexi times,
( dec, 22, 2023, 6:40)
https://www.thelextimes.com/case-comment-d-a-v-college-trust-society-and-managing-vs-director-of-public-
instructions/#post-2586-footnote-ref-4