Contractual Fee Reimbursement by PSU Does Not Make School a "Public Authority"

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.