Once it is shown that a body
has been constituted by an enactment of the State Legislature,
then nothing more need be shown to demonstrate that such a
body is a “public authority” within the meaning of Section 2(h)(c)
of the RTI Act.
9. The submission made by the learned counsel to assert
that the petitioner-University is not a body of a “self-Government”
and thereby would not be covered under the expression “public
authority”, is also without merit. Self-Government as sought to be
portrayed in the pleadings on record and at the stage of
arguments would not be a requirement and essential ingredient
for invoking the provisions of RTI Act. It would have been a
relevant para-meter to fulfil the requirement under Article 12 of
the Constitution of India in relation to enforcements of the
fundamental rights through Courts. The RTI Act, on the other
hand, intends to achieve access to information and to provide an
effective frame-work for effecting the right to information
recognized under Article 19 of the Constitution of India.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.1509 of 2013
DATE OF DECISION: MARCH 01, 2013
Chandigarh University, Village Gharuan .......Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab & others .......Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA
The question for consideration in the instant writ
petition is whether the petitioner-Chandigarh University is a
“public authority” within the meaning of Section 2(h) of the Right
to Information Act, 2005 (hereinafter to be referred to as the “RTI
Act”). The State Information Commission, Punjab has, by an order
dated 14.12.2012, answered such question in the affirmative. It
is this order dated 14.12.2012, passed by the State Information
Commission, Punjab that has been impugned before this Court.
2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would, at
the very outset, concede that the petitioner-University is a
creation by law made by the State Legislature i.e. the Punjab
University Act, 2012 of the State of Punjab (Act No.7 of 2012).CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.1509 of 2013 2
Learned counsel would, however, strenuously argue that the
petitioner would not fall within the definition of public authority
under Section 2 (h) of the RTI Act. In furtherance of such
submission, it has been urged that the statements of objects and
reasons of the Act have to be read with the provisions contained
in the Act itself, while interpreting such provision. Reliance in this
regard has been placed upon a judgment of the Apex Court in
Rameshwar Parshad etc. v. State of U.P. and others, AIR 1983
SC 383. It has been argued that the objective of the RTI Act is
not to victimize a private body, person or entity under the garb of
eliciting information. The second limb of the argument raised by
the learned counsel is that the petitioner-University is not an
authority or body of a self-Government. Much emphasis has been
laid upon the expression “self-Government” to contend that the
same would mean the Office of the Government or State itself
which by act of law creates the said “public authority” to carry out
the acts and deeds of the State as defined in Article 12 of the
Constitution of India. Learned counsel while impugning the order
dated 14.12.2012, Annexure P4, passed by the State Information
Commission, Punjab further argues that the petitioner-University
is a privately owned and managed Institution which is not
receiving financial assistance directly or indirectly from the State
and, accordingly, on this count alone cannot be construed as
“public authority” as defined under the RTI Act.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has been heard at
length.
4. There would be no quarrel as regards the firstCIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.1509 of 2013 3
submission raised by the learned counsel that while interpreting
the provision of the statute, due emphasis would have to be given
to the statement of objects and reasons of the RTI Act. The
statement of objects and reasons of the RTI Act indicate that it
has “provisions to ensure maximum disclosure and minimum
exemptions, consistent with the constitutional provisions and
effective mechanism for access to information and disclosures by
authorities”. The pre-amble to the RTI Act notes that “democracy
requires an informed citizenry and transparency of information
which are vital to its functioning and also to contain corruption
and to hold Governments and their instrumentalities accountable
to be governed.”
5. It is against such background that the provisions of the
RTI Act as also definition of “public authority” under Section 2(h)
would require to be interpreted. A wider definition would have to
be assigned to the expression “public authority” rather than a
restrictive one. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Reserve Bank of
India v. Peerless General Finance and Investment Co.Ltd.(1987)
1 SCC 424 noted the importance of the context in which every
word is used in the matter of interpretation of statutes and held in
the following terms:
"Interpretation must depend on the text and the
context. They are the bases of interpretation. One may
well say if the text is the texture, context is what gives
the colour. Neither can be ignored. Both are important.
That interpretation is best which makes the textual
interpretation match the contextual. A statute is bestCIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.1509 of 2013 4
interpreted when we know why it was enacted. With
this knowledge, the statute must be read, first as a
whole and then section by section, clause by clause,
phrase by phrase and word by word. If a statute is
looked at, in the context of its enactment, with the
glasses of the statute-maker, provided by such
context, its scheme, the sections, clauses, phrases and
words may take colour and appear different than when
the statute is looked at without the glasses provided
by the context. With these glasses we must look at the
Act as a whole and discover what each section, each
clause, each phrase and each word is meant and
designed to say as to fit into the scheme of the entire
Act. No part of a statute and no word of a statute can
be construed in isolation. Statutes have to be
construed so that every word has a place and
everything is in its place."
6. Turning to Section 2(h) of the RTI Act, the same reads
as under:
2. Definitions.- In this Act, unless the context otherwise
requires, -
(a) to (g) xxxxxxxxx
(h) “public authority” means any authority or body or
institution of self-government established or
constituted, -
(a) by or under the constitution;
(b) by any other law made by Parliament;CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.1509 of 2013 5
(c) by any other law made by State Legislature;
(d) by notification issued or order made by the
appropriate Government, and includes any-
(i) body owned, controlled or substantially
financed;
(ii) non-Government Organisation substantially
financed, directly or indirectly by funds provided
by the appropriate Government;”
7. On a plain reading of the provision, the expression
“public authority” would include an authority or a body or an
Institution of self-government established or constituted by a law
made by the State Legislature under Section 2(h)(c) of the RTI
Act. The legislature had made a conscious distinction between
“by or under” which is used in relation to the Constitution and
“by” in relation to a Central or State Legislation. As such, it would
not be enough for the body to be established under “a Central or
State legislation to become a “public authority”. If this be so,
then every Company registered under the Companies Act would
be a “public authority”. However, this is not the case here.
Admittedly, the petitioner-University is a body established by law
made by the State Legislature. Clearly, the petitioner would be
covered under the scope and ambit of the definition of “public
authority” under Section 2(h)(c) of the RTI Act.
8. The requirement as regards a body being owned,
controlled or substantially financed would only apply to the latter
part of Section 2(h) of the RTI Act i.e. body falling within the
meaning of Section 2(h)(d)(i) or (ii). Once it is shown that a bodyCIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.1509 of 2013 6
has been constituted by an enactment of the State Legislature,
then nothing more need be shown to demonstrate that such a
body is a “public authority” within the meaning of Section 2(h)(c)
of the RTI Act.
9. The submission made by the learned counsel to assert
that the petitioner-University is not a body of a “self-Government”
and thereby would not be covered under the expression “public
authority”, is also without merit. Self-Government as sought to be
portrayed in the pleadings on record and at the stage of
arguments would not be a requirement and essential ingredient
for invoking the provisions of RTI Act. It would have been a
relevant para-meter to fulfil the requirement under Article 12 of
the Constitution of India in relation to enforcements of the
fundamental rights through Courts. The RTI Act, on the other
hand, intends to achieve access to information and to provide an
effective frame-work for effecting the right to information
recognized under Article 19 of the Constitution of India.
10. For the reasons recorded above, this Court finds no
infirmity in the impugned order dated 14.12.2012, Annexure P4,
passed by the State Information Commission, Punjab holding the
petitioner-University to be falling within the meaning of “public
authority” under Section 2(h) of the RTI Act.
11. No merit. Dismissed.
( TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA )
No comments:
Post a Comment