RTI and private companies — where the line stands in 2026
A private company is generally not a public authority under §2(h). But three categories complicate that: substantially financed, performing public function, and PPP arrangements.
Substantially financed (Thalappalam test)
Thalappalam Service Coop Bank v. State of Kerala (2013) — “substantial finance” requires more than mere government contribution. Direct grants/subsidies must be a major funding source.
Public function (BCCI, IOA et al)
- BCCI — held public function via *BCCI v. Cricket Assoc of Bihar (2015)*; some High Courts have applied RTI; SC has not finally ruled.
- IOA — Delhi HC (2014) held subject to RTI.
- MTNL/LIC/PSUs — clearly public; some private listed entities (HDFC, Reliance) are not.
PPP arrangements
PPP entities operating concessions on public land/assets — under increasing pressure to disclose. Several CIC orders direct that PPP-built airports, highways, metros must disclose project-specific information.
Where 2026 has moved
- Real-estate developers in PMAY projects — disclosure of beneficiary lists ordered.
- Educational PPPs — RTI applies for scheme-related data.
- Healthcare PPPs under Ayushman — ordered to disclose scheme-financial data.
Practical drafting
- File to the government counterpart of the PPP first; they are the conduit.
- Cite Thalappalam + Cricket Assoc of Bihar + Manohar Parrikar (Bom HC 2010) as conceptual ladder.
- Frame ask in terms of scheme-implementation data, not “private business records”.
Sources
- Thalappalam Service Coop Bank v. State of Kerala (2013).
- BCCI v. Cricket Association of Bihar (2015).
- CIC orders on PPP transparency.
Last reviewed: 25 April 2026.