"Public Authority" is a statutory concept defined under Section 2(h) of the Right to Information Act, 2005.
It determines which authorities, bodies and institutions fall within the RTI framework.
Constitution/Law/Government Notification + Owned/Controlled/Substantially Financed Bodies + Substantially Government-Financed NGOs
The scope of RTI depends not merely on whether an institution performs a public function, but on whether it satisfies the statutory definition under Section 2(h).
Section 2(h) defines "public authority" to mean any authority, body or institution of self-government established or constituted:
It also includes:
Constitution OR Parliamentary Law OR State Law OR Government Notification/Order OR Government-Owned/Controlled/Substantially Financed Body OR Substantially Government-Financed NGO
The definition can be understood in two broad groups.
Bodies established or constituted:
Includes:
Section 2(h) covers both institution-creating routes and government ownership/control/financing routes.
Bodies created by or under the Constitution fall within Section 2(h).
A constitutional body is outside RTI because it has constitutional autonomy.
❌ Wrong.
Constitutional status does not automatically exclude an institution from RTI.
An authority or institution established by a law made by Parliament can fall within Section 2(h).
Parliamentary creation can satisfy one of the direct limbs of Section 2(h).
Bodies established under State legislation can also fall within the definition.
RTI applies across both Union and State institutional structures.
A body or institution established or constituted through:
of the appropriate Government
can fall within Section 2(h).
Only institutions created by an Act of Parliament are public authorities.
❌ Wrong.
State legislation and government notification/order are also expressly covered.
Section 2(h) expressly refers to:
authority, body or institution of self-government
RTI therefore extends to the grassroots level.
Panchayats are local self-government institutions and fall within the RTI framework.
subject to lawful exemptions.
RTI supports transparency at the last mile of governance.
Municipal corporations, councils and other covered local authorities are subject to the RTI framework.
RTI is not limited to Union and State governments.
Section 2(h) includes a:
body owned
by the appropriate Government.
Ownership is one route into Section 2(h); all government-connected organisations should still be analysed against the exact statutory language.
Section 2(h) also covers a body:
controlled
by the appropriate Government.
Control must be understood substantively.
Mere regulatory supervision is not necessarily enough.
In a 2026 judgment, the Supreme Court emphasised that for the "controlled" limb of Section 2(h), government control must be substantial, not merely supervisory or regulatory. :contentReference[oaicite:2]{index=2}
Any government regulation automatically makes a private body a public authority.
❌ Wrong.
This is a high-value UPSC distinction.
Government:
Government has deeper and meaningful control over the functioning of the body.
Mere:
"supervision" or "regulation"
does not by itself establish the substantial control contemplated by Section 2(h). :contentReference[oaicite:3]{index=3}
Regulation ≠ Substantial Control
Section 2(h) includes bodies:
substantially financed
directly or indirectly by funds provided by the appropriate Government.
"Substantially financed" is important.
Any government financial assistance automatically makes a body a public authority.
❌ Wrong.
The question is whether government financing is substantial within the statutory and judicial framework.
The Act expressly covers financing:
by government funds. :contentReference[oaicite:4]{index=4}
Government support need not always flow through a simple direct grant to the institution.
Indirect public financing can be relevant when determining whether Section 2(h) applies.
Non-Governmental Organisations can fall within the definition if they are:
substantially financed, directly or indirectly, by funds provided by the appropriate Government.
NGO ≠ Always covered.
NGO ≠ Always outside RTI.
Is it substantially financed by appropriate government funds?
In D.A.V. College Trust and Management Society v. Director of Public Instructions (2019), the Supreme Court considered whether NGOs substantially financed by the appropriate government fall within Section 2(h).
The Court treated "substantially financed" as a substantive statutory question rather than assuming that every NGO receiving some government assistance becomes a public authority. :contentReference[oaicite:5]{index=5}
Government financing matters, but the statutory test is "substantial financing".
The RTI Act does not provide a simple universal percentage test applicable to every case.
Substantial financing is a matter of statutory application and facts.
"Substantially financed" always means government provides more than 50% of expenditure.
❌ Do not treat a fixed 50% formula as a universal statutory rule.
The Section 2(h) definition repeatedly refers to the:
appropriate Government.
Depending on the public authority and relevant subject, this may refer to:
Do not assume "government" always means the Union Government.
Clearly part of government.
Broader statutory category.
It can include:
Every government department is a public-authority type entity, but not every public authority is a conventional government department.
These concepts should not be mechanically treated as identical.
Defines "State" for purposes of Part III fundamental rights.
Creates a separate statutory definition of public authority.
An entity's status under Article 12 does not automatically answer every Section 2(h) question.
Article 12 "State" = RTI "Public Authority".
❌ Wrong.
The legal tests and purposes are distinct.
An institution may be:
Use the specific statutory test applicable to the question.
A private entity is not automatically a public authority merely because it performs a public or socially important function.
Information relating to a private body may fall within the information-access framework if:
Possible Access
A private school is not automatically a public authority merely because it provides education.
Information held by a competent public authority concerning the school may be accessible if the public authority has legal access to it.
Every private school is directly governed as a public authority under RTI.
❌ Wrong.
Similarly, a private hospital is not automatically a public authority simply because it provides healthcare.
Examine:
Coverage cannot be decided merely by the label "private".
RTI scope depends on statutory tests, not labels alone.
The status of political parties under the RTI framework has been a matter of legal and institutional debate.
Do not use an absolute formula such as:
"All political parties are automatically public authorities."
Analyse the question using:
Judicial institutions raise special transparency questions because RTI interacts with:
Judicial bodies/institutions cannot simply be treated as completely outside transparency, but disclosure of particular information depends on the applicable legal framework.
The Supreme Court has addressed the relationship between its administrative office and the RTI framework in transparency litigation.
For judicial institutions, distinguish:
RTI gives unrestricted access to every judicial deliberation.
❌ Wrong.
Legislatures are subject to transparency considerations, but parliamentary privilege is recognised within the RTI exemption framework.
RTI ≠ Automatic override of constitutional legislative privilege.
A common mistake is to ask:
"Is this entire organisation covered?"
when the real question may be:
"Is this particular information accessible?"
A public authority may hold:
The institution may be covered, but individual records may have different disclosure outcomes.
Public authority coverage ≠ Universal disclosure of every record.
Suppose an institution qualifies as a public authority.
That means:
RTI Framework Applies.
It does NOT mean:
Every Record → Automatically Disclosable.
Potential Disclosure
Who/what is a:
Public Authority?
What is:
Information?
2(h) → WHO
2(f) → WHAT
Defines public authority.
Defines the right to information and forms of access.
2(h) → Who is covered?
2(j) → What access does the citizen have?
Once an institution is covered by RTI, the statutory framework requires designation of:
as applicable.
Public Authority ↓ PIO ↓ RTI Application ↓ Decision ↓ Appeal
Every public authority has proactive disclosure obligations under Section 4.
The Act also calls for public authorities to make information widely accessible and to continuously endeavour to provide information suo motu so citizens have minimum resort to RTI applications. :contentReference[oaicite:7]{index=7}
Being a public authority brings both:
Reactive RTI obligations + Proactive disclosure responsibilities.
Section 4 requires public authorities to maintain records in a manner that facilitates the right to information and to computerise appropriate records subject to resources and statutory requirements. :contentReference[oaicite:8]{index=8}
Public Authority ↓ Good Record Management ↓ Accessible Information ↓ Transparency
Section 4 includes an obligation concerning:
reasons for administrative or quasi-judicial decisions to affected persons.
This strengthens:
Good governance requires not merely decisions, but reasoned and reviewable decision-making.
Public authorities are expected to function in ways compatible with:
Decision ↓ Record ↓ Disclosure ↓ Scrutiny ↓ Correction
A body may be established/constituted by:
notification issued or order made by the appropriate Government.
Only statutory bodies created through Acts can qualify.
❌ Wrong.
Government notification/order is expressly included in Section 2(h).
Autonomy does not automatically remove RTI obligations.
Public-Authority Governance
An institution can enjoy functional autonomy while remaining subject to transparency obligations.
Regulators created by statute may fall within Section 2(h).
Regulatory independence does not mean exemption from transparency.
Universities can have different legal structures.
Every university is automatically a public authority.
❌ Wrong.
The institution's legal and financial structure matters.
Cooperative societies require careful analysis.
Mere statutory regulation or supervision of a cooperative society does not automatically establish substantial government control for Section 2(h).
The Supreme Court's 2026 judgment emphasised that control under Section 2(h)(d)(i) must be substantial rather than merely supervisory or regulatory. :contentReference[oaicite:9]{index=9}
Registered under a State cooperative law → Automatically a public authority.
❌ Wrong.
This is a major conceptual distinction.
Government says:
"Follow these rules."
Government has substantial influence over the organisation's functioning.
Mere regulatory/supervisory control is insufficient by itself to satisfy the "controlled" limb of Section 2(h). :contentReference[oaicite:10]{index=10}
The Supreme Court has examined whether government financing is substantial enough to bring NGOs and other bodies within Section 2(h).
The inquiry is factual and contextual.
Public authority.
❌ Wrong.
Section 2(h) expressly includes substantial financing:
by government funds.
The funding route is not necessarily limited to a simple direct grant.
An organisation may perform an important public function but still require a separate Section 2(h) analysis.
Public Function ≠ Automatic RTI Coverage
Use the statutory definition, not broad intuition.
PPP entities require careful analysis.
PPP status alone does not automatically settle RTI coverage.
The key statutory test is not:
"Is it an NGO?"
but:
"Is it substantially financed, directly or indirectly, by appropriate government funds?"
Institutional labels do not determine RTI coverage; statutory criteria do.
Government companies can fall within Section 2(h) through the ownership/control/financing limb, depending on the structure.
Government company status by itself should not lead to a blanket assumption about every associated entity.
Where an organisation is a subsidiary or related entity of a public authority, its RTI status requires separate legal analysis.
Parent organisation's status does not automatically settle every related entity's status.
A private body may hold information that a public authority can access under another law.
Section 2(f) expressly includes:
information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force. :contentReference[oaicite:11]{index=11}
RTI can therefore have indirect reach into information concerning private bodies.
This does not mean:
RTI → Unlimited access to all private information.
It means:
Potential Disclosure
subject to exemptions and other legal restrictions.
Even where a public authority holds information, privacy may restrict disclosure.
Public authority holds:
Holding information ≠ Automatic public disclosure.
A public authority may hold highly sensitive information.
Institution → Covered.
Information
→ May still be exempt.
Institutional coverage ≠ Record-level disclosure.
A public authority may hold:
Some information may be protected even though the authority itself is fully covered by RTI.
An information label such as:
"Confidential"
does not itself decide the matter.
Is there:
Automatic RTI exemption.
❌ Wrong.
The concept is important because it determines the boundary between:
Public accountability and Private autonomy.
Public Interest + Transparency + Accountability
vs
Privacy + Commercial Interests + Institutional Autonomy
Section 2(h) is central to determining how far the transparency obligations of the state extend into publicly financed or controlled institutions.
Major issues include:
Develop clearer criteria for:
Avoid mechanical assumptions.
Covered authorities should reduce information asymmetry through Section 4.
Digitisation and indexing should facilitate access.
Use:
Provide transparent guidance on:
Build:
Continue resolving contested boundaries through reasoned statutory interpretation.
When faced with a Prelims statement, ask:
Is it established by or under:
Is it a body:
Is it an NGO:
If private:
Can the relevant information be accessed by a public authority under another law?
Even if covered:
Does a statutory exemption apply to the specific information?
Institution → Section 2(h) → Public Authority? → Specific Information → Exemption Check → Disclosure/Refusal
Every government department is outside Section 2(h) because Section 2(h) only concerns independent bodies.
❌ Wrong.
Government departments are plainly within the public-authority framework.
Only constitutional and statutory bodies are public authorities.
❌ Wrong.
Government notification/order and ownership/control/substantial financing routes also exist.
Every private body is automatically outside RTI.
❌ Wrong.
Information concerning a private body may be accessible through a public authority where the law permits.
Every NGO receiving government funding is a public authority.
❌ Wrong.
The Act requires substantial financing.
Any amount of government financing means "substantial financing."
❌ Wrong.
Substantial financing is a substantive factual inquiry.
Government regulation automatically equals government control.
❌ Wrong.
The Supreme Court's 2026 ruling emphasised substantial control rather than mere supervision/regulation. :contentReference[oaicite:14]{index=14}
A body performing an important public function is automatically a public authority.
❌ Wrong.
The Section 2(h) statutory criteria matter.
Public authority status means every record must be disclosed.
❌ Wrong.
Specific information remains subject to statutory exemptions.
Article 12 State and Section 2(h) public authority are identical.
❌ Wrong.
They are distinct legal concepts.
A public authority can ignore RTI once the requested record involves a private body.
❌ Wrong.
Information concerning a private body may be accessible where the public authority can access it under another law, subject to RTI.
Government notification cannot create a public authority.
❌ Wrong.
Notification/order is expressly included in Section 2(h).
Autonomous institutions are automatically exempt from RTI.
❌ Wrong.
Autonomy does not automatically remove statutory transparency obligations.
Section 2(h) decides whether every piece of information must be disclosed.
❌ Wrong.
Section 2(h) identifies public authority; exemptions and other provisions determine disclosure.
Section 2(f) defines public authority.
❌ Wrong.
Section 2(f) defines information.
Section 2(j) defines public authority.
❌ Wrong.
Section 2(j) defines the right to information and forms of access.
Section 2(h) of the RTI Act, 2005 defines "public authority" and therefore determines the institutional boundary within which statutory transparency and accountability obligations operate. Its scope extends beyond conventional government departments to constitutional and statutory bodies, government-owned or substantially controlled/financed bodies and certain substantially government-financed NGOs. :contentReference[oaicite:15]{index=15}
Information relating to a private body that can legally be accessed by a public authority under another law may come within the information-access framework.
Mere regulatory or supervisory control does not necessarily constitute substantial control under Section 2(h); the Supreme Court reiterated this point in 2026. :contentReference[oaicite:16]{index=16}
The concept of public authority is the gateway to RTI obligations. A broad but principled interpretation can prevent public resources and governmental influence from becoming shields against accountability, while a careful exemption framework protects legitimate privacy, commercial and security interests.
