Decoding “Public Authority” under the RTI Act: A Comment on
| DOI | 10.1177/2277401720140107 |
| Date | 01 August 2014 |
| Author | Mathew Idiculla |
| Published date | 01 August 2014 |
| Subject Matter | Article |
DECODING "PUBLIC AUTHORITY" UNDER
THE RTI ACT: A COMMENT ON SUBHASH
CHANDRA AGGARWAL v. INDIAN NATIONAL
CONGRESS
Mathew Idiculla*
The June, 2013 order of the Central Information Commission
("CIC") in Subhash Chandra Aggarwal v. Indian National
Congress which brought political parties within the scope of the
Right to Information ("RTI") Act, has highlighted some issues
regarding the drafting and interpretation of the RTI Act. The CIC
held that the six national political parties which were respondents
in the case, have the ingredients that qualify them as "public
authorities" within the meaning of section 2(h) of the RTI Act. In
this comment the author argues that the reasoning for holding what
constitutes substantial financing that makes a body a "public
authority" is not clear and the interpretation of the definition of
"public authority" is inconsistent.
I. INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................... 115
II. THE DEFINITION OF PUBLIC AUTHORITY ................................................ 116
III. POLITICAL PARTIES AS PUBLIC AUTHORITIES:
THE REASONING IN SUBHASH CHANDRA AGGARWAL ............................... 118
IV. SUBSEQUENT EVENTS .............................................................................. 123
I. INTRODUCTION
The Right to Information Act, 2005 ("RTI Act") has been, for very
justifiable reasons, celebrated as one of the most revolutionary legislations
passed by the Parliament in the recent past. The legislation, which was a
result of a sustained public campaign by Mazdoor Kissan Shakti Sanghatan,
* Graduate Fellow, School of Policy and Governance, Azim Premji University, Bangalore.
To continue reading
Request your trial