Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
+{{htmlmetatags>metatag-title=(Substantially Financed Public Authority RTI India 2026)&metatag-keywords=(substantially financed rti, section 2h rti, public authority rti, thalappalam coop, rti private bodies, 50 percent funding test)
+metatag-description=(The substantially-financed test decides if a body is a public authority under Section 2 h of the RTI Act — the Thalappalam benchmark explained.)}}
+====== "Substantially Financed" under RTI — The Section 2(h) Test ======
+{{ :social:auto:explanations-substantially-financed.png?direct&1200 |"Substantially Financed" under RTI — The Section 2(h) Test — RTI Wiki}}
+<WRAP center round info 95%>
+**In one line:** [[:act#section-2preliminary-definitions|Section 2(h)(d)(i)]] of the RTI Act brings a non-government body within the Act if it is **"substantially financed, directly or indirectly by funds provided by the appropriate Government"**. The Supreme Court in //Thalappalam Service Coop. Bank Ltd. v. State of Kerala//, (2013) 16 SCC 82, set the governing test: **"substantial" means a dominant or near-complete reliance on State funding — usually above 50 percent of the body's working capital or operational budget**.
+</WRAP>
+<WRAP center round didyouknow 95%>
+**Did you know?** A one-time grant does not make a body substantially financed. The Supreme Court held in //Thalappalam// that the funding must be **ongoing, substantial, and significant** to the body's functioning. A cooperative bank receiving a small registration fee from the State is //not// substantially financed. A private school whose entire recurring cost is met by Central grants //is//.
+</WRAP>
+===== Legal Basis =====
+  * **[[:act#section-2preliminary-definitions|Section 2(h)]]** — "public authority" definition, including the four sub-clauses (a)-(d).
+  * **[[:act#section-2preliminary-definitions|Section 2(h)(d)(i)]]** — non-government body "substantially financed" by government.
+  * **[[:act#section-2preliminary-definitions|Section 2(h)(d)(ii)]]** — non-government body "substantially financed, directly or indirectly" by government.
+===== The Thalappalam test — a practical checklist =====
+  - **Does the body rely on government funds for over 50 percent of its operating expenses?** If yes, strong presumption of "substantial".
+  - **Is the funding recurring** (annual grant, salary support, capital advance) or a one-time contribution?
+  - **Would the body continue to function without government funding?** A cooperative bank receiving a small licence fee — yes. A private college receiving 90 percent of its salary budget from UGC — no.
+  - **Is there government control** on top of funding (nominated directors, audit, fee regulation)?
+  - **Is the body a "creature of statute"** — incorporated under a special law that subjects it to State oversight?
+===== Worked examples =====
+^ Body                                                                                   ^ Substantially financed?  ^ Reason                                                                      ^
+| **IITs, IIMs, NITs**                                                                    | Yes                      | Central funding + Central statute                                           |
+| **UGC-funded private universities**                                                     | Yes                      | 90 percent of salary costs paid by UGC                                      |
+| **Aided schools**                                                                        | Yes                      | Teacher salaries fully paid by State                                        |
+| **Cooperative banks (under Kerala Cooperative Societies Act)**                          | **No**                   | Thalappalam — registration fees are not "substantial" financing             |
+| **Fully private schools**                                                                | No                       | Registration does not imply substantial financing                            |
+| **NGOs receiving occasional grants**                                                    | Case by case             | Depends on whether grants are the body's mainstay                           |
+| **PSUs (ONGC, SBI, LIC, IOC)**                                                           | Yes                      | Government control + funding                                                |
+| **Cricket associations**                                                                 | Contested                | Land grants + tax concessions can add up                                    |
+===== Drafting strategy when the body denies coverage =====
+Public authority status is a threshold question. If an RTI is denied on the ground that //"we are not a public authority"//, your first appeal and second appeal should demand **findings on the Thalappalam test**. Include in your appeal:
+<code>
+The respondent's refusal rests on the assertion that it is not
+a public authority under Section 2(h). That assertion requires
+an evidence-based finding on the Thalappalam test:
+(a) What percentage of the body's recurring operating expenditure
+    is met by government funds, directly or indirectly?
+(b) Is the funding continuing, substantial, and material to
+    functioning?
+(c) What controls does the government exercise over the body?
+A non-speaking order on these three questions cannot dismiss the
+application.
+</code>
+===== Landmark rulings =====
+  * **//Thalappalam Service Coop. Bank Ltd. v. State of Kerala//, (2013) 16 SCC 82** — the governing test. "Substantial" means materially significant, usually over 50 percent of working funds; registration or regulatory oversight alone does not qualify.
+  * **//DAV College Trust & Management Society v. Director of Public Instruction//, (2019) 9 SCC 185** — reaffirmed Thalappalam and held that private colleges receiving government aid for faculty salaries are public authorities.
+  * **//R.S. Misra v. Registrar, Supreme Court of India//, Delhi High Court (2017)** — the Supreme Court (administrative side) is a public authority covered by Section 2(h)(a) via Section 28.
+===== Call to action =====
+When a private body denies coverage, file a Section 18 complaint to the Information Commission asking for findings on the three Thalappalam questions. The Commission has original jurisdiction and can direct disclosure if the body qualifies.
+===== Related =====
+  * [[:act|The RTI Act, 2005]]
+  * [[:important-decisions:thalappalam-coop-vs-state-of-kerala|Thalappalam Coop Bank v. Kerala — full case note]]
+  * [[:explanations:public-authority|Public authority under RTI]]
+  * [[:rti-vs-complaint|RTI vs Complaint — when RTI is the wrong tool]]
+  * [[:templates:first-appeal|First Appeal template]]
+===== Sources =====
+  - Right to Information Act, 2005, Section 2(h).
+  - //Thalappalam Service Coop. Bank Ltd. v. State of Kerala//, (2013) 16 SCC 82.
+  - //DAV College Trust & Management Society v. Director of Public Instruction//, (2019) 9 SCC 185.
+//Last reviewed on: 20 April 2026//
+{{tag>rti explanations section-2h substantially-financed public-authority thalappalam}}