The Karnataka High Court on August 6 ruled that Nirmithi Kendras are public authorities under the Right to Information Act (RTI Act) and are, therefore, obliged to disclose information sought from it through RTI applications [Nirmiti Kendra vs State Information Commission & Ors].

A Bench of Justice Suraj Govindaraj also imposed costs of ₹50,000 on a Nirmithi Kendra that had challenged the State Information Commission's (SIC) directive to furnish certain information under the RTI Act.

The Court dismissed the Nirmithi Kendra's argument that they are private bodies, and criticised the organization for attempting to evade transparency obligations under the RTI Act.

"It is not expected of a Governmental authority and the officers of the Nirmathi Kendra, who are Government officers, to have taken such a stand that a Nirmathi Kendra would not come within the purview of the RTI Act. All the Government offices and Departments are subject to RTI Act and are required to make available the information sought for. The attempt made officers of Nirmathi Kendra to suppress such transparency leaves much to be desired and does not inspire confidence. By way of such conduct, the petitioner Nirmathi Kendra has successfully avoided disclosure of information and details. In that view of the matter, I am of the considered opinion that the costs would also have to be imposed on the Nirmathi Kendra," the Court said.

It observed that Nirmithi Kendras, although registered as societies, were created on the government’s initiative, operates under its control, and is funded with public money. It performs public functions and is governed by senior government officials, the Court pointed out.

The Court was dealing plea by the Project Director of a Nirmithi Kendra in Chitradurga. Nirmithi Kendras are technology centres that assist in developing low cost alternatives to housing in rural areas. There are seven such centres in Karnataka.

In 2017, the Chitradurga Nirmithi Kendra was ordered by the SIC to furnish certain information to an RTI applicant under the RIT Act. By the same order, the SIC also imposed costs of ₹25,000 on the Nirmithi Kendra for refusing to disclose the information. This order was challenged by the Nirmithi Kendra (petitioner) before the High Court.

Before the High Court, the petitioner argued that it is not funded or aided by the State or Central government. It asserted that it is governed by its own governing body, not by government authorities. As such, the Nirmithi Kendra maintained that it is not a “public authority” under Section 2(h) of the RTI Act, and was not obliged to share any information under this Act.

However, the respondents, including the RTI applicant, countered that Nirmithi Kendras was set up under a State government order, that it was funded by the Housing and Urban Development Corporation (HUDCO), monitored by government officials and governed by senior government officers.

They added that such centres also received substantial government funding and that their work involved the use of public money. Thus, they argued that these centres were public authorities falling under the scope of the RTI Act.

The Court found merit in the respondents' arguments. It noted that Nirmithi Kendras were established by a government initiative, were controlled by senior government officers, and was substantially funded with public money for executing government works

The Court, therefore, ruled that these centres qualify as public authorities under Section 2(h) of the RTI Act, and is therefore bound to provide information in response to RTI applications.

It, therefore, dismissed the Nirmithi Kendra's petition in the matter with costs payable to the Karnataka State Legal Service Authority.

"The petition stands dismissed by imposing a cost of Rs.50,000/- payable to the Karnataka State Legal Service Authority, within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order," the Court ordered.

Senior Advocate Jayakumar S Patil and Advocate Rahul P appeared for the Chithradurga Nirmita Kendra (represented by its Project Director).

Advocate Rajashekar K appeared for the SIC.

High Court Government Pleader M Srinivas Kumar appeared for the Deputy Commission of Chithradurga.

Advocate J Prashanth appeared for the President Council Member of the Bharat Krishika Samaj at Hiriyur.

Advocate Amruthesh N appeared for one, SK Malagapathi.

[Read Order]