Bar Associations Are 'Public Authorities' Under RTI Act : Kerala State Information Commission

For context, S. 2(h) of the RTI Act gives the definition of 'public authority' and states,

““public authority” means any authority or body or institution of self-government established or constituted—

…

(d) by notification issued or order made by the appropriate Government,

and includes any—

…

(ii) non-Government organisation substantially financed,

directly or indirectly by funds provided by the appropriate Government”

The order was passed by Dr. Sreekumar M., State Information Commissioner in a petition preferred by Adv. T.K. Sathianathan against the State Public Information Officer (PIO), Calicut Bar Association. The petition was preferred seeking a direction to the respondent to furnish the information requested in his RTI application.

Factual Background

The petitioner had sought various information from the PIO, including details and documents related to the byelaw of the Association, the annual subscription fee paid by members, the number of books in the Association library, amount spent on renovation of the library, rent collected from the canteen, etc. However, upon getting no response, the complaint was filed before the SIC under S. 18 of the Act.

Though the SIC had sought explanations from the respondent, no such explanation was given. The respondent did not appear during the hearing also. Thereafter, the SIC gave a direction to the District Collector, Kozhikode to produce details regarding the land and building upon which the Kozhikode Bar Association was functioning.

In the report of the District Collector, it was stated that: (i) the land and building in which the Bar Association is functioning belongs to the Judicial department of the Government; (ii) the Association was not paying any rent; (iii) the Association was functioning on its own expenses; (iv) there is no specific agreement for the functioning of the Association; and (v) the Bar Association was functioning as part of the Judiciary.

Findings

The learned Commissioner found that the amount, which was receivable by the Government had the building been given on rent, can be considered to be indirect funds provided by the Government. In such circumstances, it can be concluded that Calicut Bar Association was receiving indirect Government funds since it is using the Government building rent-free. Therefore, the Commissioner reached the finding that Calicut Bar Association is a public authority as per sections 2(h)(d) and 2 (h)(ii) of the RTI Act. Thus, it should have all the responsibilities and transparency of a public authority.

The Commissioner relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in D.A.V. College Trust & Management Society v. Director of Public Instructions (C.A. Nos. 9828, 9844-9845, 946-9857, 9860 of 2013), which laid down the parameters of a public authority. The Commissioner found that the Calicut Bar Association can be considered to be a 'public authority' since it is registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 and, functioning under the supervision and control of the Advocates Act, 1961 as well as the Bar Council of Kerala.

The Commissioner also noted that for the aforesaid reasons, all the Bar Associations functioning in different parts of Kerala can be considered to be public authorities.

Finding the inaction on the part of the PIO as a serious omission under the RTI Act, which is punishable as per S. 20(1) of the Act, the Commissioner took an interim decision to initiate proceedings as per the provision. A period of 15 days was granted to the respondent to appear before the Commission to make its submissions, failing which the Commissioner would finalise the present interim order.

Case No: CP 657(2)/2024/SIC

Case Title: Adv. T.K. Sathianathan v. State Public Information Officer, Calicut Bar Association

Click to Read/Download Order