Applicability of the RTI Act to Private Unaided Institutions Not Substantially Funded by the Government

Compiled By #Team_VikramDeshmukh&Consultants

The Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) is an important law in India that aims to make government institutions more transparent and accountable. It allows citizens to access information about government functions, policies, and decisions. However, one of the common questions that arise is whether private unaided institutions, such as schools and colleges that do not receive government funding, are also covered under this Act.

To address this, we will examine the legal position based on key court judgments, particularly the Supreme Court’s ruling in D.A.V College Trust And Management Society And Others v. Director Of Public Instructions And Others (2019) and the Jammu & Kashmir High Court’s decision in Tyndale Biscoe School And Others v. Union Territory of J&K And Others (2022).

What is a Public Authority Under the RTI Act?

Under Section 2(h) of the RTI Act, a "public authority" is defined as:

1. Any institution or body that is established by the Constitution, by a law made by Parliament or State Legislature, or by a government notification.
2. Any organization that is owned, controlled, or substantially financed by the government.
3. Non-governmental organizations (NGOs) that receive substantial financial aid from the government.

The main question we are addressing is whether private schools and colleges, particularly those that do not receive significant financial assistance from the government, fall under this definition and are required to provide information under the RTI Act.

What Does the Supreme Court Say?

D.A.V College Trust Case (2019)

In this case, the Supreme Court ruled that any organization that is "substantially financed" by the government, whether directly or indirectly, is a public authority under the RTI Act. The key points from this judgment are:

• The RTI Act should be interpreted in a way that promotes transparency and accountability.
• The term "substantial financing" does not mean that the government must provide more than 50% of an institution’s funds, but it does mean that the financial support must be significant enough to influence its functioning.
• If an institution depends on government grants, land allocation, or financial aid to operate, it may be considered a public authority and would need to provide information under the RTI Act.

However, private unaided institutions that do not receive such financial support from the government are not covered by the Act.

Tyndale Biscoe School Case (2022)

The Jammu & Kashmir High Court reaffirmed the principles set out in the D.A.V College Trust case. In this case, the court held that:

• Private schools and colleges that do not receive substantial financial aid from the government are not covered by the RTI Act.
• If a school is only recognized or regulated by the government but does not receive substantial funding, it does not become a public authority.
• Just because a school follows government rules or is subject to inspections does not mean it has to provide information under the RTI Act.

This judgment provided additional clarity on the subject and confirmed that private institutions that operate independently, without financial assistance from the government, are not required to comply with RTI requests.

What is Substantial Financing?

One of the most important aspects of these cases is understanding what "substantial financing" means. Courts have clarified that:

• If an institution receives a large amount of funding from the government, either directly (through grants, salary reimbursements) or indirectly (such as free land), it may be considered substantially financed.
• However, minor benefits, regulatory approvals, or recognition do not count as substantial financing.
• The financial support must be significant enough to influence the functioning of the institution.

What Does This Mean for Private Unaided Institutions?

Based on these legal rulings, private unaided schools and colleges that do not receive government funding are not considered public authorities under the RTI Act. This has several implications:

1. They are not required to provide information under RTI requests.
2. Parents and other stakeholders cannot use RTI to access details about fees, admissions, or other matters unless the institution is substantially financed by the government.
3. Complaints regarding school fees, admission policies, or administration must be addressed through other legal channels such as education regulatory bodies, not under the RTI Act.
4. If a school or college does receive significant government grants or aid, it must comply with RTI regulations and provide requested information.

Conclusion

The judiciary has provided a clear distinction regarding which institutions fall under the RTI Act. The Supreme Court’s ruling in the D.A.V College Trust case and the Jammu & Kashmir High Court’s ruling in the Tyndale Biscoe School case establish that only institutions that receive substantial financial assistance from the government are subject to the RTI Act. Private schools and colleges that operate without such funding remain outside the RTI framework.

This interpretation ensures that government-funded organizations remain transparent while private institutions retain their autonomy unless they receive considerable financial support from public funds. Thus, unless a private unaided institution is substantially funded by the government, it does not come under the purview of the RTI Act and is not required to disclose information under it.