Delhi HC dismisses plea to bring Rajiv Gandhi Foundation under RTI Act
The Delhi High Court on Monday dismissed a long-pending petition seeking to bring the Rajiv Gandhi Foundation (RGF) within the ambit of the Right to Information (RTI) Act. The court noted that the petitioner, lawyer Shanmuga Patro, had failed to appear before it on several dates of hearing.
Justice Swarana Kanta disposed of the petition, which had challenged an October 15, 2010 order of the Central Information Commission (CIC). The CIC had ruled that the foundation did not qualify as a “public authority” under the RTI Act, and therefore was not bound by its transparency and disclosure obligations.
The core legal question was whether RGF, a non-profit trust established in 1992, could be treated as a public authority on account of receiving government funding and carrying out activities in the public sphere. Under Section 2(h) of the RTI Act, a public authority includes any body owned, controlled, or substantially financed by the government, among other criteria.
Mr. Patro had first approached RGF in 2009, seeking its constitution, updated by-laws, rules and regulations, and documents related to its organisational structure. The foundation refused, contending that it was a private trust and not subject to the RTI law.
In his petition, Mr. Patro argued that RGF had received government funding and was involved in extensive public activities, giving it the character of a public authority. He sought the intervention of the High Court to overturn the CIC's earlier decision.
During the proceedings, the High Court had directed RGF to place its annual audited accounts on record. The foundation was asked to submit year-wise audited accounts from its inception up to 2010-11 to help the court determine whether it fell within the scope of the RTI Act.
RGF, however, maintained that it had not been created through a government notification and was not established by the government. Its counsel argued that government funding constituted only about four per cent of the foundation's overall funding, and was therefore insignificant for the purposes of Section 2(h) of the RTI Act.
The court, however, did not rule on the merits of these arguments. It dismissed the petition solely on account of the petitioner's failure to appear on multiple hearing dates, effectively letting the CIC's order stand. Legal experts note that the dismissal on procedural grounds does not set a binding precedent on the question of whether RGF or similar institutions qualify as public authorities under the RTI Act.
The ruling leaves uncertainty over the applicability of RTI to foundations that receive partial government funding. The Act is intended to promote transparency and accountability in the functioning of public authorities, and the definition of what constitutes “substantial financing” has been a subject of repeated legal interpretation.
