Madras High Court Affirms Citizens' Right to Know Under RTI Act

The Madras High Court has ruled that a claim of fiduciary privilege cannot override the transparency requirements of the Right to Information Act (RTI), especially when dealing with public charitable trusts. Justice V Lakshminarayanan, hearing a petition by the Public Information Officer-cum-Administrator General and Official Trustee of Tamil Nadu, upheld an order by the Tamil Nadu State Information Commission directing disclosure of financial records of the V Thiruvengadathan Chetty Charities.

“This country, by its Preamble, declares it to be a sovereign, socialist, secular democratic republic. We are not a dictatorship nor do we live under an iron curtain, for the public authorities to retain information and keep it away from the citizenry,” the court observed on June 4, tracing the constitutional roots of the citizen's right to know.

The case originated from an RTI application filed by S Srikumar, a member of the Arya Vysya community, who sought the trust’s balance sheets, audit reports, and other financial documents after the trust reduced educational assistance to Rs 50,000, citing a lack of funds. He wanted to verify whether the trust’s finances justified the reduction and whether its funds were managed properly.

The official trustee provided some judicial records but refused to disclose the will and financial documents, claiming exemption under Section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act as information held in a fiduciary capacity. The first appellate authority upheld the refusal. However, on October 3, 2025, the Tamil Nadu State Information Commission directed disclosure, finding that the trust was a public charitable trust and that larger public interest warranted it.

Challenging that order, the official trustee approached the High Court. Justice Lakshminarayanan dismissed the petition, holding that the right to information is not merely statutory but flows from Articles 19(1)(a) and 21 of the Constitution. Citing landmark Supreme Court judgments including State of Uttar Pradesh v Raj Narain, S P Gupta v Union of India, Reliance Petrochemicals Limited v Indian Express Newspapers, and the Electoral Bonds judgment, the court affirmed that citizens have a constitutional right to know how public authorities function. Secrecy cannot be the norm in a democratic republic.

The court also noted that even colonial-era rules governing the office of the official trustee required openness and allowed beneficiaries to inspect trust records. Only genuinely confidential information was to be withheld. The court observed that the trust in question was a public charitable trust, and the applicant was a beneficiary seeking verification of fund utilisation. The fiduciary exemption under Section 8(1)(e) is not absolute and must yield to public interest in cases involving public authorities.