? Section 2(h): Public Authority Thirteen educational institutions had filed writ petitions in the Uttarakhand High Court. A common question of law was involved in all these petitions. All the petitioners before the Court were societies or schools run by societies. Each claimed that the school was entirely privately funded and since they are not ‘public authority’ as defined u/s.2(h) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (the Act), cognizance cannot be taken against them by the State Information Commission, under the Act.
Their contention before the High Court was that they are neither covered under items (a) to (d) u/s.2(h), nor under the ‘include’ part of that clause (h) as they are not owned, controlled or substantially financed directly or indirectly by funds provided by the appropriate government. Hence they are not ‘public authority’!
It was their contention that in order to get covered under that ‘includes’ part of the clause (h) the society has to be one which is owned or controlled by the government and in any case that ‘control’ exercised by the government should be ‘deep and pervasive’ control inasmuch as the management committee of the school should be controlled by and large by government nominees or by government authorities.
The Court held that these institutions are not ‘public authorities’ as they are not owned or controlled or financed by the government. None of these petitioners owes its existence to a notification or order of the Government, therefore, so far as this part, as to whether the petitioners are ‘public authorities’ is concerned, the same stands settled and it is held that institutions, such as the petitioners are not ‘public authorities’ under the Right to Information Act.
The Court considered another aspect of these writ petitions, that is though the petitioners may not be a ‘public authority’ as defined u/s.2(h) of the Act, whether the education department of the government or any other government department, being a public authority, through its Information Officer or the Appellate Authority under the Act can compel the petitioners to furnish information, which is being sought from these public authorities. For example in case the Public Information Officer in the Department of Secondary Education of Government of Uttarakhand is requested for information which pertains to any of the petitioner schools, the question would be, whether the Public Information Officer of such a public authority can compel the petitioner to furnish this information to that public authority. The answer to this is also to be found in the Act itself. The petitioners here would fall under the category of the ‘third party.’
Section 11 of the Act deals with the subject of ‘Third party information’. The Court took the view that section 11 would apply where petitioners have already given certain information to a public authority, let us say the Department of Education or any other State department. In case the petitioners attach any confidentiality to such information, they must inform the public authority of their intentions. The public authority thereafter, whenever it wants to disclose such an information to any citizen, it must give a prior notice u/s.11(1) of the Act to the ‘third party’, which is the petitioners in the present case and u/s.11(1) of the Act, when this notice has been given, the petitioners shall have an opportunity to represent before the public authority. In case, the public authority still decides to go ahead and furnish such information u/s.11(3) of the Act, this decision must be communicated to the third party who then has a right to file an appeal against this decision u/s.19 of the Act read with section 11(4) and then a right to file a second appeal. Apart from this, the ‘third party’ also has a remedy to directly approach the State Information Commission u/s.18(1)(f) of the Act.
The Court also considered one more aspect, i.e., section 8(1)(j) which relates to personal information. The Court considered 2 situations: One when the information is already held by the public authority such as department of education. In such a case the Court held that provisions of section 11 must be complied with before the information held is provided to the citizen-applicant. Two, the information is not held by the public authority, e.g., department of education. In such case the Court asked: Can the Public Information Officer compel the petitioners to furnish certain information from the records of the petitioners’ office even though such information has not been furnished under any provisions of law by the petitioners before this public authority?
The answer to it, the Court stated would be in negative as it would be an invasion on the privacy of these institutes not being a public authority. Moreover, in case such ‘information’ is not already there with such public authority, it cannot be information ‘which is held’ by the public authority and therefore, it would not be covered under the definition of ‘right to information’ given u/s.2(j) of the Act.
Note: In the last part of this decision it is held that the information which is not on the records of the public authority is not ‘held’ and is hence not covered u/s.2(j) defining ‘right to information’. This part is in contrast to the decision of CIC reported in March 2011, BCAJ. I note that under the definition of ‘right to information’ u/s.2(j) what is covered is not only ‘held’ by but also ‘under the control of’ any public authority. I would imagine that Department of Secondary Education, Government of Uttarakhand has ‘a control’ over all the schools to get whatever information it needs. On that assumption, one needs to consider whether this part of the decision is correct or not.
[Asian Education Charitable Society & Ors. v. State of Uttarakhand & Ors., decided on 9-2-2010 {2010 (2) ID 552}]
Section 8(1)(g): Section 8(1)(g) reads as under: Section 8(1), Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen:
(g) Information, the disclosure of which would endanger the life or physical safety of any person or identify the source of information or assistance given in confidence for law enforcement or security purposes;
The Jharkhand Public Service Commission, Ranchi (JPSC) filed a writ petition in the High Court of Jharkhand challenging the orders passed by the State Information Commission whereby it gave direction to JPSC to furnish the various information sought by the applicant.
The applicant had sought information regarding the names of the members of the interview board who selected candidates for the post of lecturers, etc.
The Commission directed JPSC to furnish the various information i.e., the names of the members of interview board, etc. to the applicant.
High Court of Jharkhand ruled as under:
“As regards the information regarding the names and identities of the members of the Interview Board, the same cannot possibly be furnished in view of the fact that confidentiality regarding the names and identities of the members of the Interview Board needs to be preserved.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also in the light of the discussions made above, claim of the petitioner that the information sought for in respect of the names of the members of the Interview Board cannot be furnished since it would violate confidentiality, appears to be a reasonable objection.
[Jharkhand Public Service Commission v. State of Jharkhand and Others, decided on 19-5-2010. {RTI R1 (2011) 227}]
