Steel Authority Of India Ltd vs Sh.R.K.Mishra

$~4 & 5
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ W.P.(C) 6512/2016 and CM APPL. 28193/2016



Date of Decision: 13.05.2026
IN THE MATTERS OF:

STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD.
ISPAT BHAWAN, LODHI ROAD,
NEW DELHI - 110003

......PETITIONER

(Through: Mr. Sharat Kapoor and Ms. Bhavyah Garg, Advocates.)

Versus

SH. R.K. MISHRA,
6/16, EINSTEIN AVENUE,
B-ZONE, DURGAPUR,
DISTRICT- BURDWAN – 713205
WEST BENGAL

.... RESPONDENT


(Through: Mr. Bhakti Vardhan Singh, Advocate, Amicus Curie.)


+ W.P.(C) 6546/2016 and CM APPL. 28192/2016


NATIONAL JOINT COMMITTEE FOR STEEL INDUSTRY
ISPAT BHAWAN, LODHI ROAD,
NEW DELHI – 110003

......PETITIONER
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:NEHA CHOPRA
Signing Date:23.05.2026
16:10:21
1

(Through: Mr. Sharat Kapoor and Ms. Bhavyah Garg, Advocates.)

Versus
SH. R.K. MISHRA
6/16, EINSTEIN AVENUE,
B-ZONE, DURGAPUR,
DISTRICT- BURDWAN – 713205
WEST BENGAL

......RESPONDENT NO.1
SH. M.D.N. PANICKER
D/81, SECTOR 18
ROURKELA, ORISSA

…. RESPONDENT NO. 2

(Through: Mr. Nishi Kant Singh, Advocate for intervenor.
Mr. Bhakti Vardhan Singh, Advocate, Amicus Curie)



CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV
J U D G E M E N T

PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J. (ORAL)
1. These petitions arise out of orders dated 24.12.2012 and 29.01.2016
passed by the Central Information Commission (hereinafter “CIC” ) under
the Right to Information Act, 2005 (hereinafter “RTI Act, 2005” ), relating
to disclosure of information concerning the National Joint Committee for
Steel Industry (hereinafter “NJCS” ) and Steel Authority of India Limited
(hereinafter “SAIL” ). Since both petitions arise from overlapping facts and
involve common question of law, they are being decided together.
2. W.P.(C) 6546/2016 has been preferred by the NJCS, challenging the
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:NEHA CHOPRA
Signing Date:23.05.2026
16:10:21
2

orders, whereby, NJCS has been held to be a “ public authority ” within the
meaning of Section 2(h) of the RTI, Act 2005.
3. W.P.(C) 6512/2016 has been preferred by SAIL, challenging the order
dated 29.01.2016 passed by the CIC to the extent it directs disclosure of
information pertaining to NJCS.
4. The first dispute arose from an RTI application dated 30.05.2012
preferred by respondent no. 2, namely Mr. M.D.N. Panicker, seeking a
copy of the NJCS Rules relating to TA/DA for attending meetings. The
Central Public Information Officer (hereinafter “CPIO” ) of SAIL, vide
communication dated 15.06.2012, denied the requested information on the
ground that NJCS is an independent bipartite forum and is not a “public
authority” under the RTI Act, 2005.
5. Being dissatisfied, the respondent no.2 approached the First Appellate
Authority (hereinafter “FAA” ). Vide order dated 31.07.2012 the FAA
upheld the decision of the CPIO. Aggrieved thereby, respondent no. 2
preferred a second appeal before the CIC.
6. The CIC, vide order dated 24.12.2021, set aide the orders of CPIO and
FAA and held that NCJS is a “ public authority ” under section 2(h)(d)(i) of
the RTI Act on the reasoning that 80-85% of its funds were sourced from
SAIL steel plants. Accordingly, the CIC directed the disclosure of the
requested information.
7. Subsequently, the second dispute arose with another RTI application
dated 22.10.2013 filed by respondent no. 1, namely, Mr. R.K. Mishra,
seeking information on nine points pertaining to NJCS, including employee
details, RTI compliance, website information, trade union demands,
minutes of meetings, expenditure details and copies of certain resolutions.
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:NEHA CHOPRA
Signing Date:23.05.2026
16:10:21
3

The said application was transferred to the CPIO of SAIL on 25.10.2013.
8. The CPIO, vide reply dated 11.11.2013, denied disclosure of the
information by stating that NJCS is an independent bipartite body. Reliance
th
was placed on a resolution passed during the 247 meeting of NJCS held on
15.06.2007, wherein, it was resolved that information pertaining to NJCS
would remain confidential and for internal circulation among member only.
9. The respondent no. 1 preferred a first appeal on 22.11.2013 before the
FAA, which came to be rejected vide order dated 26.12.2013. The FAA
observed that the information pertaining to NJCS was held in a fiduciary
capacity and that no larger public interest warranted disclosure. Aggrieved
thereby, respondent no. 1 preferred a second appeal before the CIC.
10. The CIC, vide order dated 29.01.2016, partly allowed the appeal.
While it declined disclosure of certain information such as trade union
demands and minutes of meetings on the grounds of fiduciary relationship
and economic sensitivity, it directed disclosure of information at points
1,2,3,4 and 7 along with certified copies relating to points 8 and 9. The CIC
also reiterated its earlier finding that NJCS is a “ public authority ” under
Section 2(h) of RTI Act, 2005.

Submissions
11. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has advanced
the following submissions: -
a. The CIC has fundamentally erred in declaring NJCS to be a “public
authority”. The NJCS is neither established nor constituted by or
under the Constitution, by any law made Parliament or the State
Legislature, nor by notification or order issued by the appropriate
Government. The NJCS has evolved as a bipartite negotiating
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:NEHA CHOPRA
Signing Date:23.05.2026
16:10:21
4

mechanism between management and workers’ representatives and
has, since 1971, functioned independently without governmental
control.
b. The CIC has incorrectly equated contribution of funds by SAIL steel
plants with “substantial financing” by the appropriate Government
under Section 2(h) of RTI Act, 2005. The expression “controlled”
under Section 2(h)(d)(i) must be understood as substantial, deep and
pervasive control over affairs and management of body and not mere
regulatory or supervisory presence.
c. The NJCS neither enjoys monopoly status conferred by the State nor
performs any sovereign or statutory governmental function. It merely
acts as a forum for collective bargaining and industrial negotiations
between employers and workers in the steel industry. The information
sought is exempt under Section 8(1)(d) and 8(1)(e) of RTI Act, 2005
as the same pertains to commercial confidence, economic interests
and information held in fiduciary capacity.
d. The disclosure of information concerning demands raised by the trade
unions and deliberations within NJCS would adversely affect the
competing and negotiating position of the parties. The CIC has failed
to follow the mandatory procedure contemplated under Section 11 of
the RTI Act, 2005 before directing disclosure of information
concerning NJCS.

e. Reliance has been placed upon the decision of the Supreme Court in
1
Thalappalam Service Cooperative Bank Ltd. v. State of Kerala to
contend that burden to establish that a body is substantially financed
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:NEHA CHOPRA
Signing Date:23.05.2026
16:10:21
5

or controlled by the Government lies upon the applicant seeking
information.
12. Per contra , learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents
has submitted as under: -
a. The NJCS directly affects the service conditions and wage structure of
more than one lakh employees and contract workers in the steel
industry. The workers employed in SAIL plants are directly governed
by wage settlements and decisions taken by NJCS and, therefore
transparency, in its functioning is a matter of legitimate public
concern.
b. The NJCS is substantially financed through contributions received
from SAIL steel plants and, therefore, falls within the ambit of
Section 2(h)(d)(i) of RTI Act, 2005. The composition of NJCS
demonstrates substantial governmental control, inasmuch as, senior
officials of SAIL and RINL, including Directors and Executive Heads
of public sector steel plants, are integral members of the committee.
th
c. The resolutions passed in 247 meeting dated 15.06.2007 and
subsequent meetings restricting dissemination of information
demonstrate a deliberate attempt to exclude transparency and
accountability. Further no information concerning NJCS is otherwise
available in public domain and even affected worker remain
dependent upon selected union representative for access to
information regarding wage negotiations and resolutions.
d. The plea of fiduciary relationship is disputed, contending that there
can be no fiduciary relationship between NJCS and the very

1
(2013 16 SCC 82
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:NEHA CHOPRA
Signing Date:23.05.2026
16:10:21
6

employees whose service conditions and wages are determined
through its deliberations. The information sought in points 1 to 4 and
7 to 9 is general in nature and does not pertain to any trade secret or
commercially sensitive material.
e. The CPIO, in initial response dated 11.11.2013, did not invoke
exemptions under Section 8(1)(d) or 8(1)(e) of RTI Act, 2005 and
subsequent attempt to justify denial on such grounds is only an
afterthought.

13. Learned Amicus Curie while assisting the Court has advanced
following submissions: -
a. The principal objection raised by the petitioners regarding exemption
under Section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act, 2005 on the ground of fiduciary
relationship is misconceived. Reliance is placed upon the decision of
2
the Supreme Court in CBSE V. Aditya Bandhopadhya wherein, it
was held that information held in fiduciary capacity may be protected
against the disclosure to the third parties, however the same cannot be
ordinarily withheld from the very beneficiaries whose interests are
represented and protected by such fiduciary arrangements.
b. NJCS was constituted for the specific purpose of wage revision,
welfare measures, industrial negotiations and service conditions
concerning employees of the steel industry and, therefore, the
employees themselves are direct beneficiaries of the functioning of
NJCS. The representative of recognized trade unions from various
steel plants forms part of the composition of NJCS, therefore, the
workers cannot be treated as strangers or third parties vis-à-vis the
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:NEHA CHOPRA
Signing Date:23.05.2026
16:10:21
7

information sought.
c. The information sought by the respondents substantially pertains to
matters affecting employees at large, including expenditure incurred
during wage negotiation, compliance with provisions of RTI Act,
details of meetings and resolutions concerning dissemination of
information. Such information cannot be characterized as confidential
commercial secrets so as to attract exemption under Sections 8(1)(d) or
8(1)(e) of the RTI Act. 2005.

d. The composition, funding pattern and nature of functions discharged
by NJCS indicate substantial financing and indirect governmental
control. Approximately 80-85% of the funds of NJCS are contributed
by SAIL steel plants, which themselves are instrumentalities of State
and are substantially financed by Central Government.
e. The expression “ substantially financed ” does not necessarily require
majority or complete financing by the Government and even indirect
financing of considerable magnitude would suffice to bring an
institution within the ambit of Section 2(h) of RTI Act, 2005.
f. The RTI Act, 2005 must lean in favour of transparency and
accountability in public institution. Reliance has been placed upon the
3
decision of the Supreme Court in State of U.P. v. Raj Narain to
contend that citizens are entitled to know the manner in which public
bodies functioning with public funds discharge their responsibilities.

14. I have heard learned counsel on behalf of the parties and have
perused the record.


2
(2011) 8 SCC 497
3
(1975) 4 SCC 428
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:NEHA CHOPRA
Signing Date:23.05.2026
16:10:21
8

Analysis
15. The controversy involved in the present petitions lies at intersection
of two competing considerations. On the one hand is claim of confidentiality
raised by the petitioners in respect of internal functioning and deliberative
process of the NJCS and on the other is the statutory objective of RTI Act,
2005 which seeks to ensure transparency and accountability in bodies
discharging functions affecting a large section of the public. The principal
issue which arises for consideration before this Court is whether the NJCS
can be brought within the ambit of “ public authority ” under Section 2(h) of
the RTI Act, 2005 and consequentially, whether the information sought by
the respondents is liable to be disclosed.
16. Before adverting to the submissions of the parties, it would be
apposite to examine the scope and ambit of Section 2(h) of the RTI Act,
2005. Section 2(h) of the RTI Act, 2005 defines the expression “ public
authority ”, for perusal of the same, the aforesaid Section is extracted as
under:
“2. Definitions. —In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires, —
(h) "public authority" means any authority or body or institution of self-
government established or constituted—
(a) by or under the Constitution;
(b) by any other law made by Parliament;
(c) by any other law made by State Legislature;
(d) by notification issued or order made by the appropriate
Government, and includes any— (0 body owned, controlled or
substantially financed;
(ii) non-Government organisation substantially financed, directly or
indirectly by funds provided by the appropriate Government;”

17. A bare perusal of the aforenoted would indicate that the legislature
has consciously employed a broad, inclusive and purposive meaning to the
expression “ public authority .” The ambit of Section 2(h) is not confined
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:NEHA CHOPRA
Signing Date:23.05.2026
16:10:21
9

merely to bodies formally established under the Constitution or by a
statutory enactment, but is extended to encompass bodies, institutions or
organisations which, though not created directly by statue, are nevertheless
owned, controlled or substantially financed, either directly or indirectly by
the appropriate Government. The emphasis of Section 2(h) is not merely the
source of creation of the body, but equally on the nature of governmental
financing, control and functional nexus with public authorities.
18. At this stage it is necessary to note the nature and functioning of
NJCS. Admittedly, NJCS was constituted in the year 1969 under the aegis
of Ministry of Labour with the avowed objective of facilitating industrial
peace and wage settlement in the steel industry. The petitioners have
repeatedly emphasized that since 1971 the NJCS has functioned
“independently” without governmental interference. Mere assertion of
operational independence cannot by itself determine the applicability of
Section 2(h) of the RTI Act, 2005. What is required to be examined is the
cumulative effect of its composition.
19. The composition of NJCS itself demonstrates substantial participation
of public sector steel undertakings, particularly SAIL and RINL, through
their senior managerial and executive personnel. The petitioners’ themselves
in W.P.(C)6512/2016 under the heading Brief facts in point I onwards has
admitted as extracted under :
“The NJCS decides its own terms of reference from time to time. The scope
of working of the Committee has been widened from time to time and now
covers:
(i) Negotiation for wage agreement and its implementation;
(ii) Matters pertaining to and steps to be taken for increase in production,
productivity, improvement in quality, reduction of cost and wastage etc.
(iii) Review of welfare amenities and facilities;
(iv) Matters on which it is necessary to draw the attention of the
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:NEHA CHOPRA
Signing Date:23.05.2026
16:10:21
10

Government; and
v) Any other matter pertaining to steel industry and its employees, as may be
agreed to in the NJCS, from time to time.
The National Joint Committee for Steel Industries consists of members from
both employee's and employer's side i.e three persons each from four Central
Trade Union organizations of INTUC, AITUC, HMS and CITU and one
person each from the recognized trade unions of Bhilai Steel Plant(BSP),
Durgapur Steel Plant(DSP), Rourkela Steel Plant(RSP), Bokaro Steel
Plant(BSL), IISCO Steel Plant(ISP), Alloy Steels Plant(ASP), Salem Steel
Plant(SSP), Visvesvarya Iron & Steel Plant(VISL), Chandrapur Ferro Alloy
Plant(CFP) and Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Ltd.(RINL), Chief Executive
Officers/Executive Directors of Steel Plants of BSP, DSP, RSP, BSL, ISP,
ASP, SSP, VISE, CFP & Director (Personnel), RINL and Director (Finance)
SAIL as members. Director (Personnel), SAIL is the Convenor- Member of
the Committee.”

20. The aforesaid admitted facts dispel the notion that the NJCS is a body
functioning in isolation or as purely private arrangement between workmen
and management. The functioning of NJCS is intertwined with the public
sector steel undertakings and the deliberations, decisions taken within NJCS
directly impact service conditions, wages and welfare measures concerning
a substantial workforce employed in such public sector undertakings.
Equally significant is the composition of NJCS, the committee comprises of
trade unions, Chief Executive Officers, Executive Directors and senior
functionaries of various SAIL steel plants and RINL. The active
participation of such high-ranking officials of public sector undertakings
cannot be viewed as merely incidental or ornamental. Rather, the same
reflects institutional and functional nexus between NJCS and Government
controlled entities. This alone, however, may not fully justify NJCS to be
the public authority.
21. What is of utmost significance is the fact recorded in the order dated
24.12.2012, that 80-85% of the funds required for functioning of NJCS are
contributed by SAIL steel plants. The petitioners have not placed on record
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:NEHA CHOPRA
Signing Date:23.05.2026
16:10:21
11

any material before this Court to dislodge the said factual finding. Once it
stands established that overwhelming financial support for the functioning
of NJCS emanates from the public sector undertakings substantially
financed by the Central Government, the argument that NJCS is purely a
private or autonomous body loses considerable force.
22. The Supreme Court in Thalappalam Service Cooperative Bank Ltd.
has elaborately interpreted the expressions “ controlled ” and “ substantially
financed ” occurring in Section 2(h) of the RTI Act, 2005. It has been
unequivocally held that while determining whether a body constitutes a
“ public authority ”, the enquiry cannot be confined to the formal character or
nomenclature of such body. The expressions “ controlled ” and “ substantially
financed ” must receive a contextual interpretation bearing in mind the
objective of the RTI Act, 2005. The Apex Court observed that the term
“ control ” under Section 2(h) contemplates a degree of control which is
substantial in nature and extends beyond mere regulatory and supervisory
oversight.
23. Similarly, the expression “ substantially financed ” was held not to
mean a complete or majority financing but real and material significance
having a bearing on functioning and existence of the body. The
requirements of section 2(h) must be based on cumulative assessment of
nature of financing, degree of governmental involvement and functional
relationship between the body and public authorities.

24. The Supreme Court in D.A.V. College Trust & Management Society
4
v. Director of Public Instructions further explained the contours of Section
2(h) of RTI Act, 2005 and clarified that the expression “ substantially
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:NEHA CHOPRA
Signing Date:23.05.2026
16:10:21
12

financed ” cannot be interpreted in arithmetical sense. The test of “ public
authority ” is not just confined to direct budgetary grants or complete
financial dependence upon the government. Even indirect financing, if of
such magnitude that materially enables the functioning of the body, may be
sufficient to attract the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005.
25. This Court in the case of Batra Hospital & Medical Research Centre
5
v. Central Information Commission & Anr . while examining the scope of
Section 2(h) of RTI Act, 2005, reiterated that the expression “ substantial
financing ” cannot be diluted to include every form of governmental
concession, incentive or incidental support. The test of determination would
be that whether the entity would “struggle to exist” on withdrawal of such
financial aid.
26. In the considered, opinion of this Court, the NJCS satisfies the indicia
of “ substantial financing ”. The committee is neither functioning in isolation
nor substantiated through voluntary private contributions independent of
State-backed entities. Its activities are integrally connected with public
sector steel undertakings, and the financial contributions made by SAIL
steel plants cannot be divorced from the larger framework of governmental
financing.
27. The 80-85% of financial contribution in the instant case is such that
withdrawal of such support would materially impair and substantially affect
the ability of NJCS to continue functioning in its present form and discharge
the very functions for which it exists. The attempt of the petitioners to
characterize such funding as “internal contribution” of member entities

4
(2019) 9 SCC 185
5
W.P.(C) 658/2016 judgement dated 06.02.2018
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:NEHA CHOPRA
Signing Date:23.05.2026
16:10:21
13

overlooks the fact that the SAIL itself operates through public funds and
public ownership.
28. The contention advanced on behalf of the respondents that the
functioning of NJCS has significant public consequences holds substance.
Wage revisions and industrial settlements negotiated within NJCS do not
merely concern a closed private arrangement between few individuals. They
affect the economic and service conditions of a very large workforce spread
across multiple steel plants in the country. The workers whose wages
allowances and service conditions are determined through NJCS cannot be
denied access even to basic information concerning the functioning of the
body that negotiates on their behalf.
29. The petitioners have strongly relied upon Section 8(1)(d) and Section
8(1)(e) of RTI Act, 2005 to contend that the information sought pertains to
commercial confidence and fiduciary relationship. The Supreme Court in
the case of CBSE v. Aditya Bnadopadhyay has dealt with exemption
provisions engrafted under RTI Act, 2005, particularly the expression
“information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship” occurring
under Section 8(1)(e). The Court explained that a fiduciary relationship is
one founded upon trust, confidence and an obligation to act for the benefit
of another, where information is entrusted with an expectation of
confidentiality and protection against disclosure to unrelated third parties.
30. The Court further observed that the exemption under Section 8(1)(e)
cannot be construed so broadly as to defeat the underlying object of the RTI
Act, 2005. Where the person seeking information is himself the beneficiary
of the process or where the information directly concerns rights and interests
of a class represented within the institution, the claim of fiduciary
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:NEHA CHOPRA
Signing Date:23.05.2026
16:10:21
14

confidentiality must be examined with greater scrutiny. The exemption
under Section 8(1)(e) is intended to preserve genuine relationships founded
upon trust and confidence and cannot be invoked as blanket justification to
withhold information in matters carrying public importance or affecting
rights and interests of larger body of persons.
31. In the facts of the instant case, the respondents are employees
connected with the steel industry and are affected by the decisions and
settlements arrived at within NJCS. Moreover, the information sought by the
respondents substantially pertains to matters such as compliance with RTI
obligations, expenditure incurred, website details, number of affected
employees and copies of resolutions restricting dissemination of
information. Such information, by no stretch, can be termed as trade secrets
or commercially confidential material deserving absolute immunity from
disclosure.
32. With respect to the apprehension expressed by petitioners that
disclosure of all information may jeopardize negotiations under Section
8(1)(d), the same has already been adequately addressed by the CIC itself,
which consciously declined disclosure of certain sensitive documents
relating to trade union demands and minutes of deliberative meetings.
33. The impugned order dated 29.01.2016, thus, reflects a balanced
approach. The CIC has not directed indiscriminate disclosure of every
document sought by the respondents. On the contrary, it has protected
information which, could affect the negotiating position or economic
interests of the parties, while simultaneously directing disclosure of
information of a general and administrative nature.
34. In the present case, the information directed to be disclosed relates to
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:NEHA CHOPRA
Signing Date:23.05.2026
16:10:21
15

the institutional functioning of NJCS itself and is not confidential
commercial information supplied by unrelated third parties. No prejudice of
such magnitude has been demonstrated so as to vitiate the impugned orders.
35. The RTI Act, 2005 is a legislation enacted to strengthen participatory
democracy by promoting openness in the functioning of bodies supported by
public resources. The Supreme Court in the case of State of U.P. v. Raj
Narain recognized the principle of “right to know.” In democratic system,
the people are entitled to know how public institutions function and how
decisions affecting them are taken. It was further observed that the right to
know is necessary concomitant and that citizens cannot meaningfully
exercise their participatory rights unless access to relevant information is
ensured.
36. The Court cannot lose sight of the fact that the resolutions passed by
NJCS restricting flow of information and limiting dissemination only
amongst select members contributed substantially to the grievance raised by
the respondents. While a deliberative body may preserve confidentiality
over sensitive negotiations and bargaining positions, such confidentiality
cannot extend to the complete exclusion of stakeholders from access to basic
institutional information. The RTI Act, 2005 does not compel disclosure of
every internal deliberation, rather, it seeks to ensure transparency.
37. In view of the aforesaid observations, this Court finds no perversity,
jurisdictional error or manifest illegality in the conclusion arrived at by the
CIC while holding NJCS to be a “ public authority ” under Section 2(h) of the
RTI Act, 2005 vide order dated 24.12.2012.
38. The petitioners, therefore, are directed to comply with the order dated
29.01.2016 and provide information in certified copies to the respondents in
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:NEHA CHOPRA
Signing Date:23.05.2026
16:10:21
16

respect of point nos. 1,2,3,4, and 7. In respect of para 8 and 9 information
is already provided.
39. Let certified copies of the same be given to the respondents within
period of 45 days of the receipt of this order.
40. Let the petitioners to also provide information as directed in order
dated 29.01.2016 within a period 45 of the receipt of this order.
41. With the aforesaid directions, the instant petitions along with pending
application stands disposed of. No order as to costs.

(PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV)
JUDGE
MAY 13, 2026
SS
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:NEHA CHOPRA
Signing Date:23.05.2026
16:10:21
17