National Joint Committee for Steel Industry is a ‘public authority’ under Section 2(h) of RTI Act.

Two writ petitions were filed challenging orders of the Central Information Commission (CIC) dated 24.12.2012 and 29.01.2016.

In the first dispute, an RTI applicant sought TA/DA rules of the National Joint Committee for Steel Industry (NJCS); the request was denied by the Steel Authority of India Ltd. (SAIL) on the ground that NJCS is not a "public authority".

In the second dispute, an applicant sought details regarding NJCS employee data, expenditures, and meeting resolutions. SAIL again denied the information, citing a resolution that NJCS proceedings are confidential.

The CIC held that NJCS is a "public authority" under Section 2(h) of the RTI Act because 80-85% of its funds are sourced from SAIL.

The Court applied Section 2(h) of the RTI Act, 2005, which defines "public authority" to include bodies "controlled or substantially financed" directly or indirectly by the appropriate Government.

It relied on Thalappalam Service Cooperative Bank Ltd. v. State of Kerala, which established that "substantial financing" does not require majority funding but must be real and material.

The court further cited D.A.V. College Trust & Management Society v. Director of Public Instructions, holding that the test is functional and cumulative rather than purely arithmetical.

Regarding exemptions, the court applied CBSE v. Aditya Bandopadhyay, which ruled that fiduciary exemptions cannot be used to withhold information from beneficiaries whose interests are represented by that fiduciary.

The Court observed that NJCS was constituted under the aegis of the Ministry of Labour and is composed of senior management from public sector undertakings (PSUs) like SAIL and RINL.

Crucially, the Court noted that 80-85% of NJCS's funding comes from SAIL, a government-financed entity; thus, NJCS would "struggle to exist" without this support, satisfying the "substantial financing" test.

The Court rejected the fiduciary exemption claim, noting that NJCS negotiates wage structures for over one lakh employees; these employees are beneficiaries of NJCS’s functions and cannot be treated as "third parties".

Finally, the Court found the CIC had already protected sensitive "commercial confidence" by declining to disclose trade union demands and minutes, directing only the disclosure of administrative and general information.

The Court dismissed the writ petitions and directed the petitioners to provide the requested information (points 1, 2, 3, 4, and 7 of the second RTI application) to the respondents within 45 days.