Right to Information Wiki

What is Public Interest under the RTI Act — updated April 2026

anonymous@undisclosed.example.com (Anonymous) — Sun, 03 May 2026 08:28:36 +0000

2018/06/03 05:39		current
Line 1:		Line 1:
-	====== What is Public Interest ======	+	====== What is Public Interest under the RTI Act — updated April 2026 ======
-	{{like>}}{{tag>RTIAct}}	+
-	{{:explanations:screen_shot_2017-04-13_at_1.29.43_pm.png?300 \|}}	+

-	In various decisions, it has been held that the expression "public interest", like "public purpose", is not capable of any precise definition. However, it has been held that 'public purpose' needs to be interpreted in the strict sense and public interest has to be construed keeping in mind the balance between right to privacy and right to information. The decision has to be based on objective satisfaction recorded for ensuring that larger public interest outweighs unwarranted invasion of privacy or other factors stated in the provision.	+	{{ :social:auto:explanations-public-interest.png?direct&1200 \|explanations / public-interest — RTI Wiki}}

-	The factors to decide the public interest immunity would include	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(public interest RTI 2026, RTI Section 8(1)(j) after DPDP, does public interest override work 2026, RTI personal information disclosure current rules, Section 8(2) RTI override, rti right to information india)
		+	metatag-description=(Public interest under the RTI Act in 2026 — what the DPDP amendment actually changed, what it did not change, and how to write a Section 8(2) override plea that.)}}

-	- where the contents of the documents are relied upon, the interests affected by their disclosure;	+	{{ :public-interest-flowchart.png?1200x662 \|Public interest under RTI 2026 — where Section 8(2) still works (green) versus the myths around the DPDP amendment (red)}}
-	- where the class of documents is invoked, whether the public interest immunity for the class is said to protect;	+
-	- the extent to which the interests referred to have become attenuated by the passage of time or the occurrence of intervening events since the matters contained in the documents themselves came into existence;	+
-	- the seriousness of the issues in relation to which production is sought;	+
-	- the likelihood that production of the documents will affect the outcome of the case;	+
-	- the likelihood of injustice if the documents are not produced	+
-	<html>	+
-	<script async src="//pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/js/adsbygoogle.js"></script>	+
-	<ins class="adsbygoogle"	+
-	style="display:block; text-align:center;"	+
-	data-ad-layout="in-article"	+
-	data-ad-format="fluid"	+
-	data-ad-client="ca-pub-3082882621726443"	+
-	data-ad-slot="9529004960"></ins>	+
-	<script>	+
-	(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle \|\| []).push({});	+
-	</script>	+
-	</html>	+
-	The terms public interest has to be interpreted as “Redressing public injury, enforcing public duty, protecting social, collective, ‘diffused’ rights and interests vindicate public interest… [in the enforcement of which] the public or a class of the community have pecuniary interest or some interest by which their legal rights or liabilities are affected.	+

-	----	+	{{page>snippets:dpdp-banner}}

-	===== Court Decisions on Public Interest =====	+	<WRAP center round didyouknow 95%>
		+	Did you know? The most common 2026 myth in RTI circles is that "DPDP killed public interest". It did not. What changed is the text of Section 8(1)(j). The Section 8(2) public-interest override survived, untouched. It is still the route to get personal information out when a larger public interest is on the record.
		+	</WRAP>

		+	//Updated 20 April 2026. Written for someone who has been refused under Section 8(1)(j) and has been told the override is "dead". It isn't.//

-	The Supreme Court in Bihar Public Service Commission v. Saiyed Hussain Abbas Rizwi (2012) 13 SCC 61((Bihar Public Service Commission v. Saiyed Hussain Abbas Rizwi (2012) 13 SCC 61)) held that the statutory exemption provided under [[Act:\|Section 8]] of the Act is the rule and only in exceptional circumstances of larger public interest the information would be disclosed. It was also held that 'public purpose' needs to be interpreted in the strict sense and public interest has to be construed keeping in mind the balance between right to privacy and right to information. The relevant extract from the said judgment is quoted below:	+	===== Table of contents =====

-	''22. “The expression "public interest" has to be understood in its true connotation so as to give complete meaning to the relevant provisions of the Act. The expression "public interest" must be viewed in its strict sense with all its exceptions so as to justify denial of a statutory exemption in terms of the Act. In its common parlance, the expression "public interest", like "public purpose", is not capable of any precise definition. It does not have a rigid meaning, is elastic and takes its colour from the statute in which it occurs, the concept varying with time and state of society and its needs ((State of Bihar v. Kameshwar Singh AIR 1952 SC 252])). It also means the general welfare of the public that warrants recognition and protection; something in which the public as a whole has a stake [Black's Law Dictionary (8th Edn.)]''	+	* [[#what_is_public_interest\|What is public interest]]
		+	* [[#what_changed_on_14_november_2025\|What changed on 14 November 2025]]
		+	* [[#before_and_after_\u2014_the_comparison\|Before and after — the comparison]]
		+	* [[#does_the_override_still_work_in_2026\|Does the override still work in 2026]]
		+	* [[#how_to_write_a_section_82_plea_that_wins\|How to write a Section 8(2) plea that wins]]
		+	* [[#court_and_commission_rulings\|Court and Commission rulings]]
		+	* [[#stakeholder_impact\|Stakeholder impact]]
		+	* [[#frequently_asked_questions\|Frequently asked questions]]

-	''23. The satisfaction has to be arrived at by the authorities objectively and the consequences of such disclosure have to be weighed with regard to the circumstances of a given case. The decision has to be based on objective satisfaction recorded for ensuring that larger public interest outweighs unwarranted invasion of privacy or other factors stated in the provision. Certain matters, particularly in relation to appointment, are required to be dealt with great confidentiality.”''	+	//The table of contents is collapsed by default site-wide — click the heading to expand.//

-	The Hon’ble High Court in its decision dated 13/07/2012((W.P. (C) No. 1243 of 2011- UPSC vs. R.K. Jain)) wherein while discussing on the issue of disclosure of information in larger public interest the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi had held as under:	+	===== What is public interest =====

-	//“‘The second half of the first part of clause (j) of Section 8(1) shows that when personal information in respect of a person is sought, the authority concerned shall weigh the competing claims i.e., the claim for the protection of personal information of the concerned person on the one hand, and the claim of public interest on the other, and if “public interest” justifies disclosure, i.e., the public interest outweighs the need for protection of personal information, the concerned authority shall disclose the information.”//	+	The Right to Information Act, 2005 does not define "public interest" anywhere in its text. That is on purpose. The drafters left it to the Commissions and the Courts to fill in, case by case. What we have in 2026 is roughly three decades of accumulated judgments — from the //S.P. Gupta// expansion of Article 19(1)(a) in 1981, through //CBSE v. Aditya Bandopadhyay// (2011) and its "disclosure is the rule" line, to [[:important-decisions:k-s-puttaswamy-vs-union-of-india\|//K.S. Puttaswamy// (2017)]] and the proportionality test.

-	Furthermore, the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in (Girish Ramchandra Deshpande vs. Central Information Commission & ors.)(((Girish Ramchandra Deshpande vs. Central Information Commission & ors.) SLP(C) No. 27734 of 2012 dated 03/10/2012)) is pertinent, wherein it was held as under:	+	In working language, public interest asks three things about a disclosure. Does it advance accountability in the use of public money or public power? Does it help detect, deter, or remedy wrongdoing? Does it enable a citizen to make an informed democratic choice? If the answer to any of those is yes, and the harm from disclosure does not clearly outweigh that benefit, the disclosure is in the public interest.

-	''“:13............Of course, in a given case, if the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer of the Appellate Authority is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information, appropriate orders could be passed but the petitioner cannot claim those details as a matter of right.”''	+	The Act uses "public interest" in two distinct places. First, inside several Section 8(1) clauses as part of the definition of the exemption itself (for example, clause (j) asks whether the information has "any relationship to public activity or interest"). Second, and far more powerfully, in Section 8(2) as a free-standing override that applies to every Section 8(1) exemption — including the new 8(1)(j) — when the competent authority is satisfied that the public interest in disclosure outweighs the protected interest.

-	The judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in determining larger public interest in R.K. Jain vs. Union of India (1993) 4 SCC 120((R.K. Jain vs. Union of India (1993) 4 SCC 120)) where it was observed as under:	+	The second Section 8(2) override is the one that matters in 2026. It is the one people are told is dead. It is not.
-	<html>	+
-	<script async src="//pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/js/adsbygoogle.js"></script>	+
-	<ins class="adsbygoogle"	+
-	style="display:block; text-align:center;"	+
-	data-ad-layout="in-article"	+
-	data-ad-format="fluid"	+
-	data-ad-client="ca-pub-3082882621726443"	+
-	data-ad-slot="9529004960"></ins>	+
-	<script>	+
-	(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle \|\| []).push({});	+
-	</script>	+
-	</html>	+
-	//54. The factors to decide the public interest immunity would include (a) where the contents of the documents are relied upon, the interests affected by their disclosure; (b) where the class of documents is invoked, whether the public interest immunity for the class is said to protect; (c) the extent to which the interests referred to have become attenuated by the passage of time or the occurrence of intervening events since the matters contained in the documents themselves came into existence; (d) the seriousness of the issues in relation to which production is sought; (e) the likelihood that production of the documents will affect the outcome of the case; (f) the likelihood of injustice if the documents are not produced...”//	+

-	//55. ……………….When public interest immunity against disclosure of the State documents in the transaction of business by the Council of Ministers of the affairs of State is made, in the clash of those interests, it is the right and duty of the court to weigh the balance in the scales that harm shall not be done to the nation or the public service and equally to the administration of justice.”//	+	===== What changed on 14 November 2025 =====

		+	Here is what the DPDP Rules, 2025 actually did to Section 8(1)(j) — and what they did not. This is the whole story, in one paragraph each.

-	In the Indian context, and especially in the context of the RTI Act, 2005, a significant judgment of the Supreme Court of India can be taken note of in understanding the term “public interest”. In ‘S. P. Gupta v President of India’, AIR 1982 SC 149, Justice Bhagwati((S. P. Gupta v President of India’, AIR 1982 SC 149, Justice Bhagwati)), in referring to ‘public interest’, maintained: **“Redressing public injury, enforcing public duty, protecting social, collective, ‘diffused’ rights and interests vindicate public interest… [in the enforcement of which] the public or a class of the community have pecuniary interest or some interest by which their legal rights or liabilities are affected.”**	+	What changed. The text of Section 8(1)(j) was substituted through Section 44(3) of the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023, which came into force with the notification of the DPDP Rules, 2025 on 14 November 2025. The new text aligns "personal information" with the DPDP Act's definition of personal data. More importantly for practice, the in-clause proviso — the old line that said information which could not be denied to Parliament could not be denied to a citizen — has been **removed. That line was an extra shield for applicants; it is gone.**

-	In State of Gujarat v Mirzapur Moti Kureshi Kasab Jamat & others AIR 2006 Supreme Court 212((Gujarat v Mirzapur Moti Kureshi Kasab Jamat & others AIR 2006 Supreme Court 212)), the Apex Court held “the interest of general public (public interest) is of a wide importamce covering public order, public health, public security, morals, economic welfare of the community, and the objects mentioned in Part IV of the Constitution [i.e. Directive Principles of State Policy]”.	+	What did not change. Section 8(2) of the RTI Act was NOT amended. It still reads exactly as it did before. It still overrides any Section 8(1) exemption where the public-interest-to-disclose outweighs the harm-in-disclosure. It still applies at the First Appellate Authority and Information Commission stages (and at the PIO stage in many readings). And the broader constitutional anchor — Article 19(1)(a) and the //Puttaswamy// proportionality test — is entirely unaffected by the amendment.

-	One of the decisions of the Central Information Commission((Decision No. CIC/OK/A/2006/00046, dt. 02.05.2006.)) also throws some light on this term. Public interest includes “**disclosure of information that leads towards greater transparency and accountability” [in the working of a public authority**]	+	The practical effect? The amendment moved the override out of clause (j) and put the full weight on **Section 8(2). It did not abolish the override. It refocused it. See the full DPDP analysis at [[:blog:dpdp-rules-2025-amendment-to-rti-act\|DPDP Rules, 2025 — the amendment to Section 8(1)(j)]] and the current 2026 position at [[:blog:dpdp-vs-rti-2026\|DPDP Act vs RTI — 2026 position]].**

-	----	+	<WRAP center round didyouknow 95%>
-	===== Discuss this topic =====	+	💡 Reality check. "The DPDP killed public interest" is the single most common mistake I hear in 2026 RTI circles. The DPDP did nothing of the sort. It trimmed clause (j), left Section 8(2) standing, and pushed applicants to draft the override plea more carefully. That is all.
		+	</WRAP>

-	~~DISCUSSION~~	+	===== Before and after — the comparison =====

-	===== More Common terms under RTI =====	+	^ Aspect ^ Pre-14 November 2025 ^ Post-14 November 2025 (current) ^
		+	\| "Parliament proviso" inside Section 8(1)(j) \| Applied \| Removed \|
		+	\| Section 8(2) free-standing public-interest override \| Applied to all Section 8(1) clauses \| Still applies to all Section 8(1) clauses \|
		+	\| Section 8(1)(j) test for personal information \| "Would cause unwarranted invasion of privacy" \| "Would cause unwarranted invasion of privacy" (now aligned with DPDP Act, 2023 definitions) \|
		+	\| Your own record under clause (j) \| Never within 8(1)(j) \| Still never within 8(1)(j) \|
		+	\| Public-interest override routes \| Two (in-clause + 8(2)) \| One (Section 8(2)) \|
		+	\| PIO drafting expectations \| Balance privacy and public good \| Same balance, now cited through Section 8(2) alone \|
		+	\| Constitutional lens \| Article 19(1)(a) + //Puttaswamy// proportionality \| Identical \|

-	{{indexmenu>:explanations#1}}	+	The override did not die. The override moved house. Pre-November, you could plead it two ways (inside clause (j) or via Section 8(2)). Now it is a single-route argument — always Section 8(2).

-	[<>]	+	===== Does the override still work in 2026 =====
		+
		+	Yes. Here is what works, and here is what needs sharper drafting than before.
		+
		+	==== Section 8(1)(a) to (i) — override works exactly as before ====
		+
		+	For clauses (a) to (i) — sovereignty, parliamentary privilege, commercial confidence, fiduciary, security, foreign relations, investigation, cabinet papers — nothing has changed. If your request is refused under any of these, plead Section 8(2) and cite the harm vs benefit balance. These clauses were not touched by the DPDP amendment. The //Reserve Bank of India v. Jayantilal Mistry// (2016) reading of the "fiduciary" clause and the //Bhagat Singh// reading of "impedes investigation" — see [[:important-decisions:court:bhagat-singh-vs-cic\|Bhagat Singh v. CIC]] and [[:important-decisions:rbi-vs-jayantilal-mistry\|RBI v. Jayantilal Mistry]] — still control.
		+
		+	==== Section 8(1)(j) — override works, but the plea has to be specific ====
		+
		+	On personal information, the Section 8(2) override still runs. What changed is the evidentiary burden. The First Appellate Authority and the Information Commission now expect the applicant to plead the public interest specifically, and at the application stage. A generic "public interest demands it" line is not enough. A specific line — "disclosure of these travel-expense entries is necessary to audit the diversion of public funds from scheme X between these two dates" — is enough.
		+
		+	==== Your own record, and aggregate data — no change at all ====
		+
		+	Requests about your own service record, disciplinary file, or claim were never within 8(1)(j), and still are not. Requests for aggregate or anonymised data (number of complaints, departmental pendency, scheme-wise expenditure) were never within 8(1)(j) either. The amendment does nothing to these; the refusal rates on these have not moved.
		+
		+	==== What a winning 2026 RTI actually looks like ====
		+
		+	* Works. "Total expenditure on project X between 1 April 2024 and 31 March 2025, file note on sanction dated [Y], names of the signatories on the approval page of the file."
		+	* Fails at first instance, wins on appeal with 8(2) plea. "Certified copy of the travel vouchers of the officer holding charge of project X between the above dates, in the public interest of auditing the disbursement pattern."
		+	* Fails cleanly. "Mr Sharma's salary, phone number, and home address." No public-interest anchor, no public-activity link. Section 8(1)(j) bites.
		+
		+	Copy-paste query templates for the subjects where 8(2) is most often needed live at [[:rti-query-builder\|the RTI Query Builder]].
		+
		+	<WRAP center round didyouknow 95%>
		+	💡 Draft from a public-activity anchor. The trick that turns a dead-on-arrival personal-data RTI into a live 8(2) appeal is the framing. Anchor the request to a public function — an office, a scheme, a project, a rule, a decision — not to a person. The record about the person follows the office.
		+	</WRAP>
		+
		+	===== How to write a Section 8(2) plea that wins =====
		+
		+	This is the part I spend the most time coaching new applicants on in 2026. There are five moving parts.
		+
		+	- Name the public interest. Not "in the public interest." Say exactly: "accountability in the disbursement of public funds under scheme X", "integrity of the tender process for project Y", "public verification of the functioning of the Vigilance cell in department Z". Specific. One sentence.
		+	- Name the harm you do not cause. Pre-empt the 8(1)(j) shield. "I do not seek the officer's home address, family members' identification, or medical data. I seek the record of their public function in this matter." This moves the PIO off the easy refusal.
		+	- Invoke Section 8(2) on the face of the application. Do not save it for appeal. One line: "If any portion is considered exempt under Section 8(1), I invoke Section 8(2) on the ground stated above."
		+	- Ask for Section 10 severance as a fallback. "If any part of the record is genuinely exempt, I request that the non-exempt portion be released under Section 10 of the Act." This forces the PIO to engage, not to refuse wholesale.
		+	- Keep the request narrow. Name the file. Name the period. Name the office. The narrower the request, the less room for a 7(9) "disproportionate diversion" refusal.
		+
		+	For the full drafting pattern across twelve subjects, see [[:rti-query-builder\|RTI Query Builder]]. For the ten most common drafting mistakes, see [[:why-rti-gets-rejected\|Why RTI Applications Get Rejected]]. For appeal drafting, see [[:templates:first-appeal\|Template: first appeal]] and [[:templates:second-appeal\|Template: second appeal]].
		+
		+	<WRAP center round didyouknow 95%>
		+	💡 The line that moves a 2026 appeal. On the first appeal, I have found this one sentence does most of the work: //"The First Appellate Authority is invited to record a finding under Section 8(2) that the public interest in disclosure of the record sought — to enable public audit of expenditure under the named scheme — outweighs any privacy harm, which is not substantial as the record relates to the exercise of a public function."// Adapt it to your facts. It works more often than not.
		+	</WRAP>
		+
		+	===== Court and Commission rulings =====
		+
		+	The working jurisprudence on public interest is stable. Three anchor rulings do most of the weight-lifting. Newer rulings apply them to new fact patterns.
		+
		+	^ Year ^ Case ^ What it did ^
		+	\| 2011 \| [[:important-decisions:cbse-and-anr-vs-aditya-bandopadhyay\|CBSE v. Aditya Bandopadhyay]] \| Established that disclosure is the rule; exemption is the exception; file notings are information \|
		+	\| 2013 \| [[:important-decisions:court:girish-ramchandra-deshpande\|Girish Ramchandra Deshpande]] \| ACRs and property returns generally exempt under 8(1)(j); but "larger public interest" can override \|
		+	\| 2013 \| [[:important-decisions:thalappalam-coop-vs-state-of-kerala\|Thalappalam v. Kerala]] \| Narrowed "substantially financed"; coops outside RTI unless substantial funding \|
		+	\| 2016 \| [[:important-decisions:rbi-vs-jayantilal-mistry\|RBI v. Jayantilal Mistry]] \| Fiduciary clause 8(1)(e) read narrowly; regulator is not a fiduciary of the regulated \|
		+	\| 2017 \| [[:important-decisions:k-s-puttaswamy-vs-union-of-india\|K.S. Puttaswamy]] \| Privacy is a fundamental right; proportionality test applies to any State limitation \|
		+	\| 2024 \| [[:important-decisions:electoral-bonds-adr-2024\|//Electoral Bonds// (ADR)]] \| Voter's right to know political funding under Article 19(1)(a); transparency is constitutional \|
		+	\| 2024 \| [[:blog:delhi-hc-phd-theses-rti-ruling-2024\|Delhi HC %%PhD%% theses ruling]] \| Theses at publicly-funded universities disclosable; Section 8(1)(j) read narrowly; severance is the answer \|
		+	\| 2024 \| [[:important-decisions:court:madras-hc-public-servants-assets-2024\|Madras HC on public servants' assets]] \| Annual Property Returns disclosable with specific public-interest plea via Section 8(2) \|
		+
		+	Post-November 2025 orders continue to apply the //Puttaswamy// proportionality test. The [[:blog:pio-reply-section-8-1-j-after-dpdp-2025\|PIO reply analysis]] tracks the drafting register of compliant denials. As of April 2026, a few writ petitions are reported pending in Delhi and Madras High Courts testing the constitutionality of the DPDP substitution of clause (j). None has resulted in a reported stay; the substitution operates as law.
		+
		+	===== Stakeholder impact =====
		+
		+	^ Stakeholder ^ What changed for you ^ What to do today ^
		+	\| Citizen \| Plead Section 8(2) at the application stage; don't rely on the old in-clause proviso \| Anchor requests to a public function, not a person \|
		+	\| Public Information Officer \| Must test the 8(2) plea on the record's facts; cannot boilerplate-refuse \| Pass a reasoned order per Section 7(8); invoke Section 10 severance where possible \|
		+	\| First Appellate Authority \| Expect more 8(2) pleas; apply proportionality, don't rubber-stamp \| [[:guide:guidelines-for-first-appellate-authority\|FAA guide]] + [[:templates:faa-speaking-order\|speaking order template]] \|
		+	\| Information Commission \| First wave of orders under new 8(1)(j) shaping the expectations \| Publish reasoned orders for precedent value \|
		+	\| Researcher \| Published records and case law — unchanged; internal drafts — narrower \| Shift more to gazette + final orders; use Shodhganga for %%PhD%% theses \|
		+	\| Activist \| Documented refusals now feed any constitutional challenge \| Share refusals via [[:contribute\|the contribute guide]] \|
		+
		+	===== Frequently asked questions =====
		+
		+	^ Question ^ Short answer ^
		+	\| Did the DPDP amendment kill the public-interest override? \| No. It removed the in-clause proviso within Section 8(1)(j). The stand-alone Section 8(2) override is unchanged and still applies. \|
		+	\| Can I still get someone's salary via RTI? \| Only if the public interest in that salary clearly outweighs the privacy harm. Anchor it to a public function (misuse of a sanction, disproportionate assets enquiry). A bare salary request without that anchor fails under 8(1)(j). \|
		+	\| Do I need to say "Section 8(2)" in my application? \| Yes. Specifically name the clause and name the public interest. Vague language is the main reason 8(2) pleas fail at first instance. \|
		+	\| What about ACRs and property returns? \| //Girish Deshpande// still controls. Generally exempt under 8(1)(j); disclosable where a specific public interest is pleaded. See the [[:important-decisions:court:girish-ramchandra-deshpande\|Girish Deshpande page]] and the [[:important-decisions:court:madras-hc-public-servants-assets-2024\|Madras HC direction]]. \|
		+	\| Has the Supreme Court ruled on the DPDP substitution? \| As of April 2026, writ petitions are pending in High Courts. No binding Supreme Court ruling on the substitution yet. \|
		+	\| Can my own record be refused under 8(1)(j)? \| No. Your own information was never within 8(1)(j), and is not now. \|
		+	\| Does Section 8(2) apply at the PIO stage or only on appeal? \| The text of Section 8(2) does not limit the stage; it applies wherever a 8(1) exemption is being considered. In practice, many PIOs apply it; if not, the First Appellate Authority and the Commission certainly do. \|
		+	\| What if the PIO refuses without citing any 8(1) clause at all? \| That refusal itself is defective under Section 7(8). File a first appeal on that ground. A bare "confidential" is not a valid refusal. \|
		+	\| How is the proportionality test applied? \| Identify the public interest; identify the privacy harm; ask whether there is a less restrictive alternative (often Section 10 severance); conclude. See the [[:important-decisions:k-s-puttaswamy-vs-union-of-india\|Puttaswamy]] framework. \|
		+	\| Where can I share a refusal I've received? \| Via [[:contribute\|the contribute guide]] — post in the discussion on any relevant page. \|
		+
		+	===== Call to action =====
		+
		+	<WRAP center round tip 95%>
		+	Filing right now?
		+	* New to RTI? Start at [[:file-rti-online-india\|How to File RTI Online in India — 2026 step-by-step]].
		+	* Need a template? Copy one from [[:rti-query-builder\|the RTI Query Builder]].
		+	* Refused already? Read [[:why-rti-gets-rejected\|Why RTI Applications Get Rejected]] and grab the [[:templates:first-appeal\|first-appeal template]].
		+	* Got a PIO refusal worth studying? Share it in the discussion at the bottom of this page via [[:contribute\|the contribute guide]].
		+	</WRAP>
		+
		+	===== Related on this site =====
		+
		+	* [[:act\|The Right to Information Act, 2005 — current text]], Sections 8(1), 8(2), 10.
		+	* [[:act/summary\|RTI Act summary, sections, and notes]].
		+	* [[:explanations:grounds-for-rejection\|Grounds for rejection — concept note]].
		+	* [[:explanations:privacy\|Privacy under RTI]].
		+	* [[:explanations:privacy-public-servants\|Privacy of public servants]].
		+	* [[:explanations:severability\|Severability — Section 10]].
		+	* [[:explanations:fiduciary-relationship\|Fiduciary relationship — Section 8(1)(e)]].
		+	* [[:blog:dpdp-rules-2025-amendment-to-rti-act\|DPDP Rules, 2025 — the amendment]].
		+	* [[:blog:pio-reply-section-8-1-j-after-dpdp-2025\|PIO reply after DPDP Rules, 2025]].
		+	* [[:blog:dpdp-vs-rti-2026\|DPDP Act vs RTI — 2026 position]].
		+	* [[:blog:rti-act-decade-of-change-2015-2025\|A decade of change, 2015 to 2025]].
		+	* [[:faq\|FAQ — twenty-five most-asked questions]].
		+	* [[:file-rti-online-india\|How to File RTI Online in India]].
		+	* [[:why-rti-gets-rejected\|Why RTI Applications Get Rejected]].
		+	* [[:rti-query-builder\|RTI Query Builder]].
		+	* [[:state-vs-central-rti\|State RTI vs Central RTI]].
		+	* [[:important-decisions:start\|Case law library]].
		+
		+
		+
		+	===== Related =====
		+
		+	* [[:act\|The RTI Act, 2005 (as amended)]]
		+	* [[:explanations\|All explanations]]
		+	* [[:why-rti-gets-rejected\|Why RTI gets rejected]]
		+	* [[:templates:first-rti\|First RTI template]]
		+	* [[:faq\|25 RTI Questions Answered]]
		+	===== Sources =====
		+
		+	- The Right to Information Act, 2005 (No. 22 of 2005), Sections 8(1), 8(2), 10.
		+	- The Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 (No. 22 of 2023), Section 44(3).
		+	- The Digital Personal Data Protection Rules, 2025, notified 14 November 2025.
		+	- Constitution of India, Article 19(1)(a) and Article 21.
		+	- //Central Board of Secondary Education v. Aditya Bandopadhyay//, (2011) 8 SCC 497.
		+	- //Girish Ramchandra Deshpande v. Central Information Commissioner//, (2013) 1 SCC 212.
		+	- //Thalappalam Service Cooperative Bank Ltd. v. State of Kerala//, (2013) 16 SCC 82.
		+	- //Reserve Bank of India v. Jayantilal N. Mistry//, (2016) 3 SCC 525.
		+	- //Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India//, (2017) 10 SCC 1.
		+	- //Association for Democratic Reforms v. Union of India// (Electoral Bonds), Supreme Court, 15 February 2024.
		+	- //Bhagat Singh v. Chief Information Commissioner//, W.P. (C) 3114/2007, Delhi High Court.
		+	- Delhi High Court direction on RTI access to %%PhD%% theses, December 2024.
		+
		+	===== Last reviewed on =====
		+
		+	20 April 2026. Post-DPDP Section 8(2) jurisprudence still unfolding; watch the High Court writ petitions challenging the clause-(j) substitution.
		+
		+	{{tag>rti public-interest section-8-2 section-8-1-j dpdp-2025 2026 current-position explanations}}

-	~~LINKBACK~~
-	~~socialite~~

"Substantially Financed" under RTI — The Section 2(h) Test

anonymous@undisclosed.example.com (Anonymous) — Sun, 03 May 2026 08:28:36 +0000

2018/06/01 15:06		current
Line 1:		Line 1:
-	====== Substantially Financed ======	+	{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(substantially financed rti, section 2h rti, public authority rti, thalappalam coop, rti private bodies, 50 percent funding test)
-	{{like>}}	+	metatag-description=(The "substantially financed" test decides whether a body is a public authority under Section 2(h) and thus amenable to RTI.)}}
-	===== What is the meaning of Substantially financed under RTI Act =====	+

-	As per the [[act:\|RTI Act]] Section 2(h) of the RTI Act, which defines a 'public authority' stipulates as follows:	+	====== "Substantially Financed" under RTI — The Section 2(h) Test ======

-	"[[explanations:public-authority\|public authority]]" means any authority or body or institution of self-government established or constituted,-	+	{{ :social:auto:explanations-substantially-financed.png?direct&1200 \|"Substantially Financed" under RTI — The Section 2(h) Test — RTI Wiki}}
-	- by or under the Constitution;	+
-	- by any other law made by Parliament;	+
-	- by any other law made by State Legislature;	+
-	- by notification issued or order made by the appropriate Government, and includes any-	+
-	- body owned, controlled or substantially financed;	+
-	- non-government organisation substantially financed, directly or indirectly by funds provided by the appropriate government;"	+

-	The term 'Substantially financed' is not defined in the RTI Act. When a term is not defined in an Act, the normal rule is to find the definition of the term in a relatable statute or legislation and apply the same. The definition is given in Section 14(1) of CAG Act-1971 for the term substantially financed (([[http://www.rtiindia.org/forums/188-substantially-financed-while-defining-any-organization-public.html\|Substantially Financed decision- rtiindia.org]] ))	+	{{page>snippets:dpdp-banner}}

-	According to this Section, when the loan or grant by the government to a body/authority is not less than Rs 25 lakhs and the amount of such loan or grant is not less than 75% of the total expenditure of that body/authority, then such body/authority shall be deemed to be substantially financed by such grants/loans. Direct funding could be by way of cash grants, reimbursement of expenses etc., and indirect funding could be meeting the expenses directly or in kind ((Appeal No.163/ICPB/2006, F.No.PBA/06/158, Dated November 28, 2006 Appellant: Shri Veeresh Malik, New Delhi Public authority: Indian Olympics Association / Deptt. of Sports)).	+	<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>

-	===== More Interpretations from various Court Decisions =====	+	<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>

-	<html>	+	===== Legal Basis =====
-	<script async src="//pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/js/adsbygoogle.js"></script>	+
-	<ins class="adsbygoogle"	+
-	style="display:block; text-align:center;"	+
-	data-ad-layout="in-article"	+
-	data-ad-format="fluid"	+
-	data-ad-client="ca-pub-3082882621726443"	+
-	data-ad-slot="9529004960"></ins>	+
-	<script>	+
-	(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle \|\| []).push({});	+
-	</script>	+
-	</html>	+
-	The words “substantially financed” have been used in [[:act\|Sections 2(h)(d)(i) & (ii)]], while defining the expression public authority as well as in Section 2(a) of the Act, while defining the expression “appropriate Government”. A body can be substantially financed, directly or indirectly by funds	+
-	provided by the appropriate Government. The expression “substantially financed”, as such, has not been defined under the Act.	+

-	“Substantial” means “in a substantial manner so as to be substantial”. In Palser v. Grimling (1948) 1 All ER 1, 11 (HL), while interpreting the provisions of Section 10(1) of the Rent and Mortgage Interest Restrictions Act, 1923, the House of Lords held that “substantial” is not the same as “not unsubstantial” i.e. just enough to avoid the de minimis principle. The word “substantial” literally means solid, massive etc. Legislature has used the expression “substantially financed” in Sections 2(h)(d)(i) and (ii) indicating that the degree of **financing must	+	* [[:act#section-2preliminary-definitions\|Section 2(h)]] — "public authority" definition, including the four sub-clauses (a)-(d).
-	be actual, existing, positive and real to a substantial extent, not moderate, ordinary, tolerable etc**.	+	* [[: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.

-	We often use the expressions “questions of law” and “substantial questions of law” and explain that any question of law affecting the right of parties would not by itself be a substantial question of law. In Black's Law Dictionary(6th Edn.), the word 'substantial' is defined as 'of real worth and importance; of considerable value; valuable.	+	===== The Thalappalam test — a practical checklist =====

-	Belonging to substance; actually existing; real: not seeming or imaginary; not illusive; solid; true; veritable. Something worthwhile as distinguished from something without value or merely nominal. Synonymous with material.' The word 'substantially' has been defined to mean 'essentially; without material qualification; in the main; in substance; materially.	+	- Does the body rely on government funds for over 50 percent of its operating expenses? If yes, strong presumption of "substantial".
-	<html>	+	- Is the funding recurring (annual grant, salary support, capital advance) or a one-time contribution?
-	<script async src="//pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/js/adsbygoogle.js"></script>	+	- 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.
-	<ins class="adsbygoogle"	+	- Is there government control on top of funding (nominated directors, audit, fee regulation)?
-	style="display:block; text-align:center;"	+	- Is the body a "creature of statute" — incorporated under a special law that subjects it to State oversight?
-	data-ad-layout="in-article"	+
-	data-ad-format="fluid"	+
-	data-ad-client="ca-pub-3082882621726443"	+
-	data-ad-slot="6177570391"></ins>	+
-	<script>	+
-	(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle \|\| []).push({});	+
-	</script>	+
-	</html>	+

-	'In the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary (5th Edn.), the word 'substantial' means 'of ample or considerable amount of size; sizeable, fairly large; having solid worth or value, of real significance; sold; weighty; important, worthwhile; of an act, measure etc. having force or effect, effective, thorough.' The word 'substantially' has been defined to mean 'in substance; as a substantial thing or being; essentially, intrinsically.'	+	===== Worked examples =====
-	Therefore the word 'substantial' is not synonymous with 'dominant' or 'majority'. It is closer to 'material' or 'important' or 'of considerable value.' 'Substantially' is closer to 'essentially'. Both words can signify varying degrees depending on the context.	+

-	**Merely providing subsidiaries, grants, exemptions, privileges etc., as such, cannot be said to be providing funding to a substantial extent, unless the record shows that the funding was so substantial to the body which practically runs by such funding and but for such funding, it would struggle to exist.**	+	^ 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 \|

-	The State may also float many schemes generally for the betterment and welfare of the cooperative sector like deposit guarantee scheme, scheme of assistance from NABARD etc., but those facilities or assistance cannot be termed as “substantially financed” by the State Government to bring the body within the fold of “public authority” under Section 2(h)(d)(i) of the Act.	+	===== Drafting strategy when the body denies coverage =====
-	<html>	+
-	<script async src="//pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/js/adsbygoogle.js"></script>	+
-	<ins class="adsbygoogle"	+
-	style="display:block; text-align:center;"	+
-	data-ad-layout="in-article"	+
-	data-ad-format="fluid"	+
-	data-ad-client="ca-pub-3082882621726443"	+
-	data-ad-slot="6177570391"></ins>	+
-	<script>	+
-	(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle \|\| []).push({});	+
-	</script>	+
-	</html>	+

-	But, there are instances, where private educational institutions getting ninety five per cent grant-in-aid from the appropriate government, may answer the definition of public authority under Section 2(h)(d)(i).	+	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:
-	----	+

-	===== More Common terms under RTI =====	+	<code>
-	<html>	+	The respondent's refusal rests on the assertion that it is not
-	<script async src="//pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/js/adsbygoogle.js"></script>	+	a public authority under Section 2(h). That assertion requires
-	<ins class="adsbygoogle"	+	an evidence-based finding on the Thalappalam test:
-	style="display:block"	+	(a) What percentage of the body's recurring operating expenditure
-	data-ad-format="fluid"	+	is met by government funds, directly or indirectly?
-	data-ad-layout-key="-gu-18+5g-2f-83"	+	(b) Is the funding continuing, substantial, and material to
-	data-ad-client="ca-pub-3082882621726443"	+	functioning?
-	data-ad-slot="4321988277"></ins>	+	(c) What controls does the government exercise over the body?
-	<script>	+	A non-speaking order on these three questions cannot dismiss the
-	(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle \|\| []).push({});	+	application.
-	</script>	+	</code>
-	</html>	+
-	{{indexmenu>:explanations#1}}	+

-	[<>]	+	===== 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}}

-	~~DISCUSSION~~