Although a citizen has alternatives to directly access records through channels like the courts or the charity commissioner’s office, the state information commissioner of Nagpur division in Maharashtra stated that “Transparency of funds received from various authorities and government department along with related correspondence would bolster public trust and facilitate public scrutiny of its activities,” if information is suo motu uploaded on the website by the public trusts, from time to time as per Section 4 of the Right to Information (RTI) Act.
This candid suggestion, by state information commissioner (SIC) Rahul Pande, was a result of the recent second appeal hearing in the Deekshabhoomi Nagpur Memorial Committee case where RTI applicant Dr Purachandra Meshram did not get the information through a series of RTI applications though some of the information was shared by the charity commissioner’s office.
While dismissing Dr Meshram’s second appeal, SIC Pande brought to the notice of the committee that “recognising the public-facing nature of the Dr Babasaheb Ambedkar Memorial Committee, Deekshabhoomi Nagpur, it is essential for the committee to periodically submit an annual audit and related reports concerning its activities, assets, and trustees to the charity commissioner. More importantly, given the unique role of the memorial committee, which oversees matters concerning sentiments of a vast population, it is recommended that the committee proactively disclose more information on its website, as per the suo motu disclosures under section 4 of the RTI Act.”
Mr Pande further added that “This openness would also allow vigilant citizens to monitor the functioning of such government or semi-government bodies, reducing unwarranted suspicion often caused by a lack of information. In the case of the Dikshabhoomi Smarak Samiti, it is important to ensure that no doubts arise regarding the misuse of government funds. While the memorial committee does not fall under the purview of the Right to Information Act, the appellant’s concerns underline the importance of transparency.”
Dr Meshram sought information on membership records of individuals who have subscribed over the past decade and the money they contributed; a copy of the document detailing the rights and privileges granted to subscribers under Section 4 (ii); a copy of the document outlining the rights and privileges accorded to patrons who have contributed Rs500 or more, as specified under Section 5. He also sought information on the constitution, rules, and its management. He asked for certified copies, change reports and audit reports of government orders approving funds from the Maharashtra government for various projects, schemes and constructions since the inception and submitted to the charity commissioner, Nagpur. Also, a copy of the register listing general and life members.
He further sought information on work, projects and activities undertaken for research on Pali language literature, including relevant documentation; and details of other initiatives implemented to preserve the legacy of Dr Babasaheb Ambedkar.
Analysing the case, Mr Pande observed that “According to the Act, a public authority includes any organisation that receives substantial financial assistance from the government, either directly or indirectly. While the RTI applicant’s argument that the Samiti falls under this definition appears persuasive at first glance, the High Court has clarified that the extent of government assistance must be so significant that the organisation cannot operate without it.”
He also referred to the Supreme Court’s observation in the Thalappalam case, that financial support must be so substantial that the body essentially depends on it for existence. He stated that “Upon examination, it is evident that this criterion does not apply to the Deekshabhoomi Smarak Samiti. The funds allocated by the government for events like Dhamma Pravartan Din and for development works are not provided directly to the Samiti but are instead utilised for the Deekshabhoomi Smarak and other related buildings under its jurisdiction.”
Quoting section 23 of the Maharashtra Public Trust Act, Mr Pande stated that “The Gujarat High Court and several other high courts have held that when an effective and alternative mechanism exists within an office, government department, or authority, it is more appropriate to obtain such documents under the relevant procedures. For instance, certified copies of legal proceedings pending in court must be obtained following the court’s prescribed procedure, and registered documents from the registration office can be accessed by paying the required fee under the Registration Act and its rules. Similarly, public trusts and registered institutions are mandated to submit their annual documents to the charity commissioner’s office, as specified under rule 23, which includes provisions for associated fees. In the present case, both parties have submitted copies of various documents obtained from the public trust registration office, demonstrating the availability of these records through the prescribed channels.”
However, Mr Pande stated that if a citizen chooses to procure information under the RTI Act, he should be able to get it at the click of a mouse by visiting the website of the public trust as per Section 4.
(Vinita Deshmukh is consulting editor of Moneylife. She is also the convener of the Pune Metro Jagruti Abhiyaan. She is the recipient of prestigious awards like the Statesman Award for Rural Reporting, which she won twice in 1998 and 2005 and the Chameli Devi Jain Award for outstanding media person for her investigation series on Dow Chemicals. She co-authored the book "To The Last Bullet - The Inspiring Story of A Braveheart - Ashok Kamte" with Vinita Kamte and is the author of "The Mighty Fall".)
