Skip to main content

NGOs and private organisations substantially funded by govt fall within RTI ambit: SC

NGOs and private organisations, substantially financed by government or its authorities, come under the ambit of Right to Information Act making them liable to reveal information under the transparency law, the Supreme Court today said.

A bench of justices K S Radhakrishnan and A K Sikri said that even though government may not have any statutory control over such organisations but they fall within the definition of public authority if they are substantially financed by it.

"Government may not have any statutory control over the NGOs, as such, still it can be established that a particular NGO has been substantially financed directly or indirectly by the funds provided by the appropriate government, in such an event, that organisation will fall within the scope of Section 2(h)(d)(ii) of the RTI Act (definition of public authority).

"Consequently, even private organisations which are, though not owned or controlled but substantially financed by the appropriate government will also fall within the definition of public authority," the bench said.

Although the term NGO has not been defined in the RTI Act but these organisations carry on various social and welfare activities which are otherwise governmental in nature, it said.

"The term Non-Government Organisations (NGO), as such, is not defined under the Act. But, over a period of time, the expression has got its own meaning and, it has to be seen in that context, when used in the Act.

"Government used to finance substantially, several non-government organisations, which carry on various social and welfare activities, since those organisations sometimes carry on functions which are otherwise governmental," it said.

The bench, however, said that whether an NGO has been substantially financed or not by the appropriate government, is a question of fact, to be examined by the authorities concerned under the RTI Act.

Article referred: http://www.business-standard.com/article/economy-policy/ngos-substantially-funded-by-govt-fall-within-rti-ambit-sc-113100700967_1.html

Comments

Most viewed this month

Court approached in the early stages of arbitration will prevail in all other subsequent proceedings

In National Highway Authority of India v. Hindustan Steelworks Construction Limited, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court opined that once the parties have approached a certain court for relief under Act at earlier stages of disputes then it is same court that, parties must return to for all other subsequent proceedings. Language of Section 42 of Act is categorical and brooks no exception. In fact, the language used has the effect of jurisdiction of all courts since it states that once an application has been made in Part I of the Act then ―that Court alone shall have jurisdiction over arbitral proceedings and all subsequent applications arising out of that agreement and arbitral proceedings shall be made in that Court and in no other Court. Court holds that NHAI in present case cannot take advantage of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for explaining inordinate delay in filing present petition under Section 34 of this Act in this Court.

No Rebate For Stamp Duty Paid In Another State - Bombay HC

A three judge bench of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court (Bombay HC) in a recent judgment in the matter of Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Maharashtra State, Pune and Superintendent of Stamp (Headquarters), Mumbai v Reliance Industries Limited, Mumbai and Reliance Petroleum Limited, Gujarat1 has held that orders in case of a scheme of arrangement under Section 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956 (Act) involving different High Courts in multiple states, are separate instruments in themselves. Accordingly, stamp duty would be payable on all the orders (and consequently, all the states) without the benefit of remission, rebate or set-off.

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...