RTI public authority definition broadly covers bodies under government recognition and pervasive statutory control.

Section 2(h) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 was interpreted broadly to further transparency and accountability. A body may qualify as a public authority if it is established or constituted by a government notification or order, including a later order that confers status as an authority or institution of self-government. The inclusive limb was read disjunctively, so ownership, control, or substantial financing by the appropriate Government can each independently satisfy the definition without meeting conditions (a) to (d). Applying that approach, the petitioner's recognition under the Securities Contracts (Regulation) Act, 1956 and the pervasive statutory control over stock exchanges brought it within section 2(h).

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioner was a public authority under section 2(h) of the Right to Information Act, 2005, either because it was established or constituted by an appropriate Government notification or order, or because it was a body controlled by the appropriate Government.

Analysis: Section 2(h) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 was construed broadly to advance transparency, accountability, and access to information in bodies performing public or statutory functions or enjoying public funding. The words "established" and "constituted" were held not to be confined to initial creation alone, and could include a later governmental notification or order that confers the status of an authority or institution of self-government. The expression "body" in the inclusive part was read disjunctively, so that ownership, control, or substantial financing by the appropriate Government would each independently attract the definition without requiring satisfaction of conditions (a) to (d). The Court further held that the petitioner's recognition under the Securities Contracts (Regulation) Act, 1956, and the regulatory framework governing stock exchanges, resulted in its constitution as an authority or institution of self-government. On the second limb, the statutory scheme also showed deep and pervasive governmental control over recognised stock exchanges, which supported inclusion within section 2(h).

Conclusion: The petitioner was a public authority under section 2(h) of the Right to Information Act, 2005, and the challenge failed.

Ratio Decidendi: A body performing public functions and subject to governmental recognition or pervasive statutory control can fall within section 2(h) of the Right to Information Act, 2005, and the inclusive limb of that definition is satisfied where the body is owned, controlled, or substantially financed by the appropriate Government.

---