Section 2(h) of the RTI Act: Public Authority:
The question for consideration in the instant writ petition is whether the petitioner – Chandigarh University is “Public Authority” within the meaning of Section 2(h) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (the “RTI Act”). The State Information Commission, Punjab had, by an Order dated 14.12.2012, answered such question in the affirmative. It is this order dated 14.12.2012, passed by the State Information Commission, Punjab that has been impugned before this Court.
Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, at the very outset, conceded that the petitioner- University was a creation by law made by the State Legislature i.e. the Punjab University Act, 2012 of the State of Punjab (Act No.7 fo2012). Learned counsel however, strenuously argued that the petitioner would not fall within the definition of ‘public authority’ u/s. 2(h) of the RTI Act. In furtherance of this submission, it was urged that the statements of objects and reasons of the Act have to be read with the provisions contained in the Act itself, while interpreting the provision. Reliance in this regard was placed upon a judgment of the Apex court in Rameshwar Parshad etc. vs. State of U.P. & others, AIR 1983 SC 383. It was argued that the objective of the RTI Act was not to victimise a private body, person or entity under the garb of eliciting information. The second limb of the argument raised by the learned counsel was that the petitioner University was not an authority or body of self-Government. Much emphasis was laid upon the expression “self-Government” to contend that the same would mean the Office of the Government or State itself which by act of law creates the said “public authority” to carry out the acts and deeds of the State as defined in Article 12 of the Constitution of India. Learned counsel while impugning the Order dated 14.12.2012, passed by the State Information Commission, Punjab further argued that the petitioner-University is a privately owned and managed Institution which is not re ceiving financial assistance directly or Indirectly from the State and, accordingly, on this count alone cannot be construed as “public authority” as defined under the RTI Act.
The Court observed that there would be no quarrel as regards the first submission raised by the learned counsel that while interpreting the provision of the statute, due emphasis would have to be given to the statement of objects and reasons of the RTI Act. The statement of objects and reasons of the RTI Act indicate that it has “provisions to ensure maximum disclosure and minimum exemption, consistent with the constitutional provisions and effective mechanism for access to information and disclosures by authorities”. The pre-amble to the RTI Act notes that “democracy requires an informed citizenry and transparency of information which are vital to its functioning and also to contain corruption and to hold Governments and their instrumentalities accountable to governed.”
The Court further observed that it is against such background that the provisions of the RTI Act as also definition of “public authority” under Section 2(h) would require to be interpreted. A wider definition would have to be assigned to the expression “public authority” rather than a restrictive one. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Reserve Bank of India vs. Peerless General Finance and Investment Co. Ltd. (1987) 1 SCC 424 noted the importance of the context in which every word is used in the matter of interpretation of statute and held in the following terms:
“Interpretation must depend on the text and the context. They are bases of interpretation. One may well say if the text is the texture, context is what gives colour. Neither can be ignored. Both are important. That interpretation is best which makes the textual interpretation match the contextual. A statute is best interpreted when we know why it was enacted. With this knowledge, the statute must be read, first as a whole and then section by section, clause by clause, phrase by phrase and word by word. If a statute is looked at, in the context of its enactment, with the glasses of the statute maker, provided by such context, its scheme, the sections, clauses, phrases and words may take colour and appear different than when the statute is looked at without the glasses provided by the context. With these glasses we must look at the Act as a whole and discover what each section, each clause, each phrase and each word is meant and designed to say as to fit into the scheme of the entire Act. No part of a statute and no word of statute can be construed in isolation. Statutes have to be construed so that every word has a place and everything is in its place.”
On a plain reading of the provision, the expression “public authority” would include an authority or a body or an institution of self-government established or constituted by a law made by the State Legislature u/s. 2(h)(c) of the RTI Act. The legislature had made a conscious distinction between “by or under” which used in relation to the Constitution and “by” in relation to a Central or State Legislation. As such, it would not be enough for the body to be established under “a Central or State legislation to become a “public authority”. If this be so, then every Company registered under the Companies Act would be a “public authority”. However, this is not the case here. Admittedly, the petitioner-University is a body established by law made by the State Legislature. Clearly, the petitioner would be covered under the scope and ambit of the definition of “public authority” under Section 2(h)(c) of the RTI Act.
The requirement as regards a body being owned, controlled or substantially financed would only apply to the latter part of Section 2(h) of the RTI Act i.e. body falling within the meaning of Section 2(h)(d)(i) or (ii). Once it is shown that a body has been constituted by an enactment of the State Legislature, then nothing more need be shown to demonstrate that such a body is a “public authority” within the meaning of Section 2(h)(c) of the RTI Act.
The Court held that the submission made by the learned counsel to assert that petitioner- University was not a body of a “self-Government” and thereby would not be covered under the expression “public authority”, was also without merit. Self-Government as sought to be portrayed in the pleadings on record and at the stage of arguments would not be a requirement and essential ingredient for invoking the provisions of RTI Act. It would have been a relevant para-meter to fulfil the requirement under Article12 of the Constitution of India in relation to enforcement of the fundamental rights through Courts. The RTI Act, on the other hand, intends to achieve access to information and to provide an effective frame–work for effecting the right to information recognised under Article 19 of the Constitution of India.
For the reasons recorded above, the Court found no infirmity in the impugned Order dated 14.12.2012, passed by the State Information Commission, Punjab holding the petitioner-University was a “public authority” u/s. 2(h) of the RTI Act.
[Chandigarh University vs. State of Punjab & Ors. CWP No. 1509 of 2013 decided on 01.03.2013] [Citation: RTIR I (2013) 353(P&H)]
