LegalAware
LegalAware.ai
EMPOWERING LEGAL AWARENESS

D.A.V. College Trust and Management Society & Ors. v. Director of Public Instructions & Ors.

Civil Appeal · 2019 INSC 1042Decided 17 Sept 2019
Civil Appeal No. 9828 of 2013
Justice Deepak Gupta · Justice Aniruddha Bose

Background

Several colleges and a school run by DAV institutions in Chandigarh challenged RTI applications on the ground that, being non-governmental organisations (NGOs), they were not "public authorities" obliged to furnish information under the RTI Act. The core legal question was whether an NGO that receives substantial government funding qualifies as a "public authority" under Section 2(h) of the Act. The lead appeal (Civil Appeal No. 9828 of 2013) concerned D.A.V. College, Chandigarh, M.C.M. D.A.V. College, Chandigarh, and D.A.V. Senior Secondary School, Chandigarh, while several connected appeals raised the same question for other institutions.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court held that "substantial financing" need not mean a majority (more than 50%) of funding from the government, even indirect, significant financial assistance that is material or decisive in enabling the body to function can qualify. Applying this standard, the Court found that the three Chandigarh institutions received government grants ranging between roughly 40-50% of their expenditure and covered about 95% of staff salaries, which was enough to make them "substantially financed" and therefore "public authorities" under the RTI Act. On this basis, Civil Appeal No. 9828 of 2013 was dismissed, upholding the High Court's finding against the college trust. For the other connected appeals, the Court remitted the factual question of substantial financing to the High Court for fresh determination in light of the legal test it had just laid down, since those High Court judgments had not fully examined the financing aspect.

Lesson Learnt

An NGO or private institution cannot escape RTI obligations merely by pointing out that government funding is less than half its budget: if the funding is substantial and material to its functioning, it can still be treated as a "public authority" bound to disclose information to citizens.

Official source (sci.gov.in)View Judgment (PDF)

More rulings in Right to Information Law

Right to Information LawDelhi High Court

Sachin Kumar Daksh vs. Director-Admin and Finance & Anr.

The Court held that such personal service/family information of a third party is exempt from disclosure under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act unless a genuine larger public interest is shown: merely alleging the information involves public funds, or that it would help pursue a "vigilance complaint," is not enough. Finding the application was really aimed at settling a personal/matrimonial score, the Court dismissed the writ petition.

Decided 7 Oct 2026Read case
Right to Information LawSupreme Court of India

Special Police Establishment v. Kamta Prasad Mishra

The Supreme Court examined the SPE's statutory jurisdiction under the Madhya Pradesh Lokayukt Act, 1981, finding it limited to investigating specific corruption-related offences (under the Prevention of Corruption Act and certain Penal Code provisions) and not extending to matters of "intelligence" or "security." The Court held that an organisation can only be exempted under Section 24(4) of the RTI Act if it is genuinely an intelligence or security body, and the SPE's narrow statutory mandate did not meet that description merely because a government notification labelled it so. It therefore struck down the 2011 notification to the extent it purported to exclude the SPE from the RTI Act's coverage, calling it excessive and beyond the scope of Section 24(4). The Court upheld the High Court's judgment directing disclosure of the requested information and dismissed the SPE's appeal, while clarifying it had not examined the notification's effect on a separate agency, the State Bureau of Investigation of Economic Offences.

Decided 15 Jun 2026Read case
Right to Information LawSupreme Court of India

Central Information Commission vs Delhi Development Authority

The Supreme Court held that Section 12(4) of the RTI Act grants the CIC general powers of superintendence, direction, and management of its own affairs, and that framing internal Regulations to organise its Benches and functioning falls squarely within this power. It is functionally no different from any administrative circular or rule that a body needs to manage its own workload. The Court rejected the argument that using the word "Regulations" (rather than "circular" or "guideline") somehow elevated these into invalid subordinate legislation requiring separate statutory backing. Emphasising that administrative bodies like the CIC need operational autonomy to function efficiently and serve the public, the Court set aside the High Court's judgment and upheld the CIC's power to frame such Regulations.

Decided 10 Jul 2024Read case
Right to Information LawSupreme Court of India

State Bank of India vs Association for Democratic Reforms & Ors.

The Court rejected SBI's request for a four-and-a-half-month extension, holding that SBI's own submissions showed the required data was already compiled and readily available, undermining its claim that disclosure required extensive additional time. It directed SBI to disclose the complete details by close of business on 12 March 2024, and directed the ECI to compile and publish this information on its official website by 5 pm on 15 March 2024, along with the interim-order data ECI had separately held in custody during the litigation. SBI was also ordered to file a compliance affidavit from its Chairman and Managing Director. The Court declined to exercise its contempt jurisdiction at this stage, but explicitly warned SBI that it would face contempt proceedings for willful disobedience if it failed to meet the new deadlines.

Decided 11 Mar 2024Read case
Right to Information LawSupreme Court of India

Association for Democratic Reforms & Anr. vs Union of India & Ors.

The Constitution Bench unanimously struck down the Electoral Bond Scheme as unconstitutional. It held that the complete anonymity of political donations violated the voters' right to information under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution, since financial contributions to a party can reveal quid pro quo arrangements and policy influence that voters are entitled to know before casting their ballot; the Court found that curbing black money, while a legitimate goal, did not justify a total blackout of information and that less restrictive alternatives (e.g., contribution caps with disclosure) existed. It also struck down the 2017 amendment that removed the earlier cap on how much a company could donate to political parties, holding that unlimited corporate political contributions were manifestly arbitrary and violated Article 14, since companies can influence elections far more than individuals and the removed cap had no adequate substitute safeguard. As a result, the Court ordered an immediate stop to the issuance of further Electoral Bonds, directed the SBI to disclose to the Election Commission full details of every bond purchased and encashed since April 2019 (donor names, amounts, and recipient parties), and directed the Election Commission to publish this information publicly; unencashed valid bonds were ordered returned for a refund.

Decided 15 Feb 2024Read case
Right to Information LawSupreme Court of India

Anjali Bhardwaj vs CPIO, Supreme Court of India (RTI Cell)

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition. It held that a Collegium's discussions during a meeting remain only "tentative" until they crystallize into a final resolution formally drawn up and signed by its members; only such a final, signed resolution is required to be disclosed under the Collegium's own 2017 resolution on transparency. The subsequent Collegium resolution of 10 January 2019 made clear that the consultation process begun on 12 December 2018 had not been completed and no final decision was reached, so there was nothing concrete to disclose. The Court declined to rely on media reports or a Collegium member's press remarks as proof of a "final decision."

Decided 9 Dec 2022Read case