Public authority under RTI Act construed contextually, bringing privately run bodies substantially financed by public funds within disclosure obligations.

Under Section 2(h) of the Right to Information Act, an autonomous non-governmental body may qualify as a public authority if it is substantially financed by public funds, and "substantially financed" must be construed in its ordinary contextual sense rather than by a narrower external statutory test. Applying that approach, the Delhi High Court treated the Indian Olympic Association, the Organizing Committee of the Commonwealth Games, 2010, and Sanskriti School as public authorities because each received significant public funding and other governmental support sufficient to bring them within the RTI regime. The writ petitions failed and the disclosure obligations under the Act were upheld.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Indian Olympic Association was a public authority under Section 2(h) of the Right to Information Act, 2005; (ii) Whether the Organizing Committee of the Commonwealth Games, 2010 was a public authority under Section 2(h) of the Right to Information Act, 2005; (iii) Whether Sanskriti School was a public authority under Section 2(h) of the Right to Information Act, 2005.

Issue (i): Whether the Indian Olympic Association was a public authority under Section 2(h) of the Right to Information Act, 2005.

Analysis: The definition of public authority was treated as an inclusive one. The Court held that a non-governmental organization need not be established by a notification if it otherwise falls within the inclusive part of Section 2(h). The expression "substantially financed" was construed in its ordinary and contextual sense, without importing the narrower test from the CAG Act. On the facts, the Indian Olympic Association received significant government funding over several years for international sporting participation and related activities, and its functioning depended materially on such public assistance.

Conclusion: The Indian Olympic Association was held to be a public authority and was amenable to the Right to Information Act, 2005.

Issue (ii): Whether the Organizing Committee of the Commonwealth Games, 2010 was a public authority under Section 2(h) of the Right to Information Act, 2005.

Analysis: The Committee was found to be a non-governmental organization created for organizing the Games, with substantial public financing in the form of large unsecured advances and governmental support that extended beyond an ordinary commercial loan arrangement. The Court emphasized that the waiver of interest from surplus, the commitment to meet shortfalls, and the use of public infrastructure without user charges showed substantial financing by the Government, even though the Committee retained autonomy in its internal affairs.

Conclusion: The Organizing Committee of the Commonwealth Games, 2010 was held to be a public authority and was subject to the Right to Information Act, 2005.

Issue (iii): Whether Sanskriti School was a public authority under Section 2(h) of the Right to Information Act, 2005.

Analysis: The Court held that mere presence of civil servants' spouses in the management did not by itself establish governmental control. However, the record showed substantial public funding for construction and infrastructure, concessional allotment of valuable land, audit conditions, government nominees on the managing committee, and other terms reflecting significant support from public funds. These facts brought the school within the category of a non-governmental organization substantially financed by the appropriate Government.

Conclusion: Sanskriti School was held to be a public authority and was covered by the Right to Information Act, 2005.

Final Conclusion: The writ petitions failed, the impugned orders were sustained, and all three petitioners were required to comply with the disclosure obligations and information-access framework under the Right to Information Act, 2005.

Ratio Decidendi: For purposes of Section 2(h) of the Right to Information Act, 2005, an autonomous non-governmental body may be a public authority if it is substantially financed by public funds, and the expression "substantially financed" is to be construed contextually and not by borrowing a narrower definition from another statute.

---