Public Authority — Section 2(h) & Obligations Section 4

Landmark Case: Thalappalam Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. State of Kerala (2013) 16 SCC 82 — The Supreme Court held that mere government regulation or registration does not make a body a “public authority”; there must be substantial financial support or ownership by the government, setting the definitive test for Section 2(h).

Public Authority — Section 2(h)

The RTI Act applies only to “public authorities.” The broader this definition, the more organisations are covered. Section 2(h) defines public authority in wide terms encompassing bodies created by the Constitution, by law, and bodies that are owned, controlled, or substantially financed by government.

The full text of Section 2(h) covers four creation categories:

• (a) Bodies established by the Constitution
• (b) Bodies created by Parliament
• (c) Bodies created by State Legislature
• (d) Bodies created by government notification or order

And two “includes” categories:

• (i) Bodies owned, controlled, or substantially financed by government
• (ii) Non-government organisations substantially financed directly or indirectly by government

The Tree of Public Authorities

graph TD
    A["PUBLIC AUTHORITY\nSection 2(h)"] --> B["Created by:\nConstitution / Parliament\nState Legislature\nGovernment Notification"]
    B --> C["Examples: All Ministries\nLok Sabha and Rajya Sabha\nSupreme Court and High Courts\nElection Commission, CAG"]

    A --> D["Owned OR Controlled OR\nSubstantially Financed\nby Government"]
    D --> E["Examples: RBI, SBI, LIC\nONGC, SAIL, ONGC\nGovernment Universities\nPanchayats and Municipalities"]

    A --> F["NGOs Substantially Financed\ndirectly or indirectly\nby Government"]
    F --> G["Examples: Government-aided schools\nResearch institutions\nNGOs receiving government grants"]

Three-Part Test for Public Authority

The word “substantially” is key. In Thalappalam, the Court said a few subsidies or regulation do not suffice. The government funding must be so significant that the body could not function without it. Mere registration under a government statute does not make a body a public authority.

Section 4 — Obligations and Suo Motu Disclosure

Section 4 is described as the “heart of RTI.” It requires every public authority to publish information on its own initiative — before anyone files an application. This is called proactive or suo motu disclosure. The goal is stated in Section 4(2): publish so much that citizens have minimum resort to filing RTI applications.

The 17 Mandatory Disclosure Categories — Section 4(1)(b)

graph TD
    A["17 Mandatory Disclosures\nSection 4(1)(b)"] --> B["Organisation\n1. Particulars of organisation\n2. Powers and duties of officers\n3. Procedure for decisions"]
    A --> C["Operations\n4. Norms for functions\n5. Rules used\n6. Statement of documents held"]
    A --> D["Public Interaction\n7. Consultation arrangements\n8. Boards and committees\n9. Directory of officers"]
    A --> E["Finance and Schemes\n10. Monthly remuneration\n11. Budget allocated\n12. Subsidy programmes"]
    A --> F["Further Details\n13. Recipients of concessions\n14. Info in electronic form\n15. Citizen facilities\n16. Name and details of PIO\n17. Other prescribed info"]

Other Obligations under Section 4

Sample Problem (KSLU-style)

Problem: A private engineering college receives 60% of its annual funding from State Government grants and is affiliated to a State University. A student files an RTI application for the college’s fee receipts and expenditure accounts. The college refuses, saying it is a private institution. Is the college a public authority under the RTI Act?

Answer (IRAC):

• Issue: Whether a private engineering college substantially funded by government grants is a “public authority” under Section 2(h) of the RTI Act 2005.
• Rule: Section 2(h) defines public authority to include any non-government organisation “substantially financed, directly or indirectly, by funds provided by the appropriate Government.” The Thalappalam case (2013) established the test: substantial financing means the body could not function without the government’s financial support.
• Analysis: The college receives 60% of its annual funding from the State Government. This is clearly a majority and constitutes “substantial financing.” The college’s functioning depends directly on these grants. State affiliation to a statutory university further confirms the nexus. The fact that the college is “private” in its ownership does not override the substantial financing test.
• Conclusion: The college is a public authority under Section 2(h)(ii). It must respond to the RTI application and is also bound by Section 4 proactive disclosure obligations. The student’s application should be entertained by the college’s designated PIO.