Citizens can enforce their right to ask for information only from a ’public authority’ under the RTI Act.
The bench observed that if the body is owned, controlled or substantially financed by the government, it would qualify as a ’public authority’.The court stated that this was not a case where an entity was established as a private company and was regulated by statute later.
Observing that the NSEI could not function as a stock exchange at all without recognition by SEBI, the court said it agreed with the single judge’s finding that it has to be regarded as having been ”established” or ”constituted” by an order issued by the government.
”We do not find this to be a case warranting interference in appeal..The learned single judge holds, in the impugned judgment, that the NSEI is controlled by the appropriate government, and we agree,” said the bench in its judgment.”We affirm and uphold the judgment of the learned single judge. The appeal is dismissed, with no orders as to costs,” it concluded.
The NSEI assailed the single judge’s judgement, passed on April 15, 2010, before the division bench.
The stock exchange had challenged an order of the Central Information Commissioner before the single judge and asserted that it was not a public authority under the RTI Act.
Before the division bench, the NSEI’s senior counsel argued that it was not owned, controlled or substantially financed, directly or indirectly, by the government, and was merely recognised and regulated by the SEBI.
It was contended that if regulatory control of stock exchanges was considered sufficient to convert a privately incorporated stock exchange into a ’public authority’, all similarly placed private entities such as commercial banks, mutual funds, etc would become ’public authorities’ and defeat the scope and objective of the RTI Act. PTI ADS ZMN
.
.
