NJCS is a "Public Authority" Under RTI Act Due to Substantial Financing and Control by Public Undertakings

The National Joint Committee for Steel Industry (NJCS) was established in 1969 to facilitate wage settlements and industrial peace in the steel sector.

When 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".

The 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.

SAIL and NJCS challenged these orders before the High Court.

1. Whether the National Joint Committee for Steel Industry (NJCS) constitutes a "public authority" under Section 2(h) of the RTI Act, 2005.

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.

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.

Thalappalam Service Cooperative Bank Ltd. v. State of Kerala, establishing that "substantial financing" does not require majority funding but real and material financial significance.

D.A.V. College Trust & Management Society v. Director of Public Instructions, which clarified that the test is functional and not merely arithmetical.

Principles from CBSE v. Aditya Bandhopadhyay regarding the scope of fiduciary relationships, noting that information cannot be withheld from the beneficiaries of that fiduciary arrangement.

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.

The 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.

Regarding 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".

The CIC had already performed a balancing act by protecting sensitive trade union demands while ordering the disclosure of general administrative and expenditure data.

The 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.

The Court held that openness in bodies discharging public functions (like wage determination for over a lakh workers) is essential for transparency and participatory democracy.