HomeRTI Case-Law Library › D.A.V. College Trust and Management Society v...
Public authority — substantially financed

D.A.V. College Trust and Management Society v. Director of Public Instructions

Quick answer

A non-governmental body that is substantially financed by the government — directly or indirectly — is a “public authority” under the RTI Act, even if it is privately managed.

Court / forum
Supreme Court of India
Citation
Supreme Court of India · 17 September 2019
Decided
17 Sep 2019
RTI sections
2(h)

Issue before the court

Whether NGOs and government-aided institutions that are substantially financed by the government are “public authorities” under Section 2(h) and answerable under the RTI Act.

Facts in brief

The question was whether aided educational institutions receiving substantial government grants fall within Section 2(h). The college received about 44% of its expenditure as government grants, and the State bore about 95% of its teaching-staff salaries.

Holding / decision

The Supreme Court held that NGOs substantially financed, directly or indirectly, by the appropriate government are “public authorities” under Section 2(h). On these facts — 44% of expenditure and 95% of teaching salaries from government — the financing was “substantial”, making the institution a public authority answerable under the RTI Act.

The RTI principle it set

“Substantially financed” under Section 2(h) is met where government funding is significant to a body’s functioning; such NGOs and aided institutions are public authorities under the RTI Act.

What it means for you

A privately-run body that lives substantially on government money (grants, staff salaries) can be made answerable under RTI — it is not shielded simply because it calls itself “private”.

Find the right PIOFree · no login · plain-English guidance

When to cite this case

When a substantially-financed NGO, aided school or college, society or trust claims it is not a public authority.

Later developments / current status

Builds on Thalappalam v. State of Kerala, applying the “substantially financed” test to aided institutions and NGOs.

Limits / caution: Whether financing is “substantial” is fact-specific; the case applies the Thalappalam test to particular funding patterns.

Source & verification

Primary official source: Official government source — pending verification
Full-text reference: Read the full judgment (free third-party legal database — not an official record)
Reviewed by
Adv. Syed Musab Rahim Hashmi
RTI Advocate, FileMyRTI Legal Team
Review status: Verified
Last reviewed: 26 June 2026
Source verified against: Pending official source

Related FileMyRTI services

Use FindMyPIO to check whether a body is a public authority you can file an RTI with.

This is educational information, not legal advice. This summary is for general understanding of the Right to Information Act, 2005. The authoritative text is the official judgment as recorded by the court. Any third-party links are provided only for convenient reading. For your specific matter, consult a qualified legal professional.
Success Your changes has been saved
Error