List of Current Affairs

Source: Chhattisgarh High Court

Why in News? 

A Single Bench of Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad of the Chhattisgarh High Court, in the case of DAV Public School v. Central Information Commission (2026), held that a private, self-financed school does not qualify as a "public authority" under Section 2(h) of the Right to Information Act, 2005, merely because a Public Sector Undertaking (PSU) reimburses fee expenses for the wards of its employees under a Memorandum of Understanding. 

What was the Background of DAV Public School v. Central Information Commission (2026) Case? 

• The dispute arose after the termination of an ad-hoc employee at DAV Public School, Korba, which operates under the DAV College Managing Committee. 
• The terminated employee's spouse (Respondent No. 3) filed a series of RTI applications addressed to South Eastern Coalfields Limited (SECL), seeking access to the school's internal administrative and service records. 
• The school maintained that it was an independent, self-financed institution governed by its own bylaws, and that its only link with SECL was a Memorandum of Understanding under which SECL reimbursed fee deficits for the wards of its employees. 
• Despite this, the Central Information Commission (CIC) directed the school to disclose the requested information and treated the school's Principal as a "deemed Public Information Officer." 
• Aggrieved, DAV Public School approached the Chhattisgarh High Court challenging the CIC's orders. 

What were the Court's Observations? 

• On the meaning of "substantial financing": The Court relied on the Supreme Court's ruling in Thalappalam Service Cooperative Bank Ltd. v. State of Kerala, and clarified that funding qualifies as "substantial" only where it is so significant that the institution's survival becomes practically dependent on it, rather than being incidental or contractual support. 
• On the PSU's role: The Court held that reimbursement of fee deficits for employees' wards under a contractual MoU was compensatory in nature and did not amount to a grant-in-aid or funding of the kind that could bring the school within the scope of "substantial financing." 
• On "deep and pervasive control": The Court drew a distinction between routine regulatory compliance, such as CBSE affiliation, and the degree of control over an institution's decision-making required to treat a private body as a State instrumentality. Mere presence of PSU representatives on a managing committee, or use of certain infrastructure, was held insufficient to establish such control. 
• On the "deemed Public Information Officer" fiction: The Court held that the deeming provisions under Sections 5(4) and 5(5) of the RTI Act apply only to officers who are subordinate to a public authority. Since the school's Principal was neither an employee of nor subordinate to SECL, the Principal could not be treated as a deemed Public Information Officer. 
• Conclusion: The Court quashed the CIC's orders, holding that the school did not meet the statutory definition of "public authority" and that its Principal could not be fastened with liability as a deemed PIO. The ruling reaffirmed that contractual welfare arrangements between a PSU and a private institution do not dilute the institution's administrative autonomy under the RTI Act. 

What is a "Public Authority" under the RTI Act, 2005? 

About the Act: 

• The Right to Information Act, 2005 is a parliamentary legislation empowering citizens to seek information from public authorities to promote transparency and accountability in governance. 
• Public authorities must furnish requested information within 30 days (48 hours in matters concerning life or liberty), through designated Public Information Officers. 
• Oversight is exercised by the Central and State Information Commissions. 
• The Act balances citizens' right to access government-held information with specific exemptions for national security, commercial confidence, and personal information. 

"Public Authority" under the RTI Act, 2005 

Statutory Basis: Section 2(h) of the RTI Act, 2005 defines "public authority." 

Primary Categories: 

• Constitutional bodies – Any authority, body, or institution of self-government established or constituted by or under the Constitution of India. 
• Parliamentary legislative bodies – Any authority, body, or institution established or constituted by any law made by Parliament. 
• State legislative bodies – Any authority, body, or institution established or constituted by any law made by a State Legislature. 
• Government notification bodies – Any authority, body, or institution established or constituted by a notification or order of the appropriate Government.

Extended Definition – Section 2(h)(d): 

Sub-clause (i) – Owned, Controlled, or Substantially Financed Bodies: 

• Any body owned by the appropriate Government. 
• Any body controlled by the appropriate Government. 
• Any body substantially financed by the appropriate Government.

Sub-clause (ii) – Non-Government Organisations: 

• Non-Government organisations substantially financed by the appropriate Government. 
• Such financing may be direct or indirect, through funds provided by the appropriate Government. 

Source: Supreme Court 

Why in News? 

Recently, the Supreme Court, in the case of Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. Union of India and Ors. (2026), ordered status quo with regard to ethanol supply allocation for the Ethanol Supply Year (ESY) 2025-26, after hearing contentions that a Karnataka High Court order could destabilise the national policy on ethanol-petrol blending. 

What was the Background of Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. Union of India and Ors. (2026) Case? 

• M/S Vinp Distilleries and Sugar Private Limited, a dedicated ethanol manufacturer, approached the Karnataka High Court challenging reduced allocation of ethanol supply despite having established a dedicated ethanol plant. 
• The petitioner's plant had an annual production capacity of approximately 9.90 crore litres, but it was allotted only 3.92 crore litres for ESY 2025-26, against a bid of 9.26 crore litres. 
• The Oil Marketing Companies (OMCs) opposed the plea, contending that preferential allocation on a best endeavour basis could not confer a right on the petitioner to seek a mandamus compelling compliance with the inter-party agreement. 
• The OMCs further argued that allowing the representation would amount to modification of Government policy itself, which is impermissible in law. 
• The Karnataka High Court allowed the plea, holding that the petitioner had a legitimate expectation of continuance of the prevailing policy, arising from the agreement between the parties and the consistent past conduct of the OMCs. 
• The High Court directed issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the OMCs to act in consonance with Clause 6.8 of the agreement, particularly since the OMCs had themselves invoked the clause to enhance procurement from 1.44 crore litres to 3.92 crore litres. 
• Aggrieved by this order, Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. approached the Supreme Court through a Special Leave Petition. 

What were the Court's Observations? 

The Supreme Court, while dealing with the matter, made the following key observations: 

On the challenge to the High Court order: 

• The Attorney General, appearing for Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd., contested the Karnataka High Court's order and argued that it could destabilise the national policy for 20% ethanol-petrol blending (E20 Policy). 

On the choice of forum: 

• When questioned by the Bench as to why the Division Bench of the High Court could not be approached instead, the Attorney General submitted that ethanol supply contracts for ESY 2025-26 had already been finalised in October 2025, and that several similar petitions were pending before various High Courts. 
• The Attorney General accordingly sought time to file appropriate transfer petitions to consolidate the pending matters. 

On the interim relief granted: 

• Having heard the Attorney General for Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. and Senior Advocate for the respondents, the Bench issued notice in the matter. 
• The Bench ordered status quo with regard to ethanol supply allocation for ESY 2025-26, pending further consideration. 

What is the Ethanol Blended Petrol (EBP) Programme? 

About Ethanol and Blending: 

• Ethanol is a biofuel produced through fermentation of sugars or via petrochemical processes; in India it is primarily sourced from sugarcane molasses, with growing use of maize, surplus rice, and damaged foodgrains. 
• Ethanol is classified as 1G, 2G, or 3G based on feedstock and production technology. 
• Blending refers to mixing ethanol with petrol to cut crude oil imports and emissions; E10, E20, and E100 denote 10%, 20%, and pure ethanol fuel respectively. 
• E20 requires compatible engines with a slight efficiency trade-off, while E100 requires flex-fuel vehicles; India is still in early stages of flex-fuel adoption compared to countries like Brazil.

Ethanol Blended Petrol (EBP) Programme: 

• The EBP Programme operates under the National Biofuel Policy (NBP), 2018, and is driven by the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas. 
• Its objectives are to reduce reliance on imported crude oil, cut greenhouse gas emissions, and boost farmer incomes through an alternate agricultural market. 
• India achieved its 20% ethanol blending (E20) target in 2025, five years ahead of the original 2030 deadline. 
• As of April 2026, all petrol sold in India must contain 20% ethanol and meet a minimum Research Octane Number (RON) of 95. 
• Ethanol production capacity has grown from under 2 billion litres in 2014 to nearly 20 billion litres, exceeding the 11 billion litres required for the E20 mandate. 
• The National Biofuel Coordination Committee (NBCC) oversees feedstock allocation based on surplus declarations. 

Infrastructure and Pricing Reforms: 

• Financial support schemes and assured pricing mechanisms, along with long-term offtake agreements between OMCs and Dedicated Ethanol Plants, have provided stable demand and encouraged private investment in ethanol production. 
• Tax rationalisation (GST cut from 18% to 5%) and legal amendments enabling free interstate movement of ethanol have further lowered costs and eased supply chain bottlenecks.

Impact of the EBP Programme: 

• The programme has strengthened India's energy security and delivered substantial forex savings by curbing crude oil imports, while significantly cutting carbon emissions in line with the country's Net-Zero goals. 
• It has also boosted farmer and distillery incomes, generated rural employment, and promoted circular economy practices through valuable by-products like DDGS cattle feed.

Generations of Ethanol Feedstock: