01Facts
The National Joint Committee for Steel Industry (NJCS) was established in 1969 to facilitate wage settlements and industrial peace in the steel sector.
¶ 18When respondents sought information regarding NJCS Rules, expenditure, and meeting minutes under the RTI Act, 2005, the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) of Steel Authority of India Ltd. (SAIL) denied the requests, contending that NJCS is an independent bipartite forum and not a "public authority".
¶ 4, 8The Central Information Commission (CIC), via orders dated 24.12.2012 and 29.01.2016, declared NJCS a public authority because 80–85% of its funds were sourced from SAIL plants and it involved senior government officials.
¶ 6, 10SAIL and NJCS challenged these orders before the High Court.
02Issues
i.1. Whether the National Joint Committee for Steel Industry (NJCS) constitutes a "public authority" under Section 2(h) of the RTI Act, 2005.
¶ 15ii.2. Whether the information sought is exempt from disclosure under Section 8(1)(d) (commercial confidence) and Section 8(1)(e) (fiduciary relationship) of the RTI Act.
¶ 11, 2903Law Applied
Section 2(h) of the RTI Act, 2005, which defines a "public authority" to include bodies "controlled or substantially financed" directly or indirectly by the appropriate government.
¶ 16Thalappalam Service Cooperative Bank Ltd. v. State of Kerala, establishing that "substantial financing" does not require majority funding but real and material financial significance.
¶ 22D.A.V. College Trust & Management Society v. Director of Public Instructions, which clarified that the test is functional and not merely arithmetical.
¶ 24Principles from CBSE v. Aditya Bandhopadhyay regarding the scope of fiduciary relationships, noting that information cannot be withheld from the beneficiaries of that fiduciary arrangement.
¶ 29Provisions in the judgment · 3 · Linked ones open on LawLens
Right to Information Act, 2005 Section 2Section 8Section 11
04Reasoning
The Court observed that NJCS's composition involves high-ranking officials from public sector undertakings (SAIL and RINL), indicating a functional nexus with the government.
¶ 20The Court found that 80–85% of NJCS's funding is provided by SAIL, a state-owned entity; thus, the body is "substantially financed" because it would "struggle to exist" without such support.
¶ 21, 27Regarding exemptions, the Court rejected the fiduciary claim under Section 8(1)(e), reasoning that the respondents (employees) are the direct beneficiaries of NJCS deliberations and are not "third parties".
¶ 30The CIC had already performed a balancing act by protecting sensitive trade union demands while ordering the disclosure of general administrative and expenditure data.
¶ 32–3305Holding
The Court upheld the CIC’s determination that NJCS is a "public authority" under Section 2(h) of the RTI Act.
¶ 37The Court dismissed the writ petitions and directed the petitioners to provide the information concerning point nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, and 7 to the respondents within 45 days.
¶ 38–41The Court held that openness in bodies discharging public functions (like wage determination for over a lakh workers) is essential for transparency and participatory democracy.
¶ 28, 35Original Court PDF
National Joint Committee For Steel IndustryvsR.K. Mishra And Anr.
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
