Institutions receiving grants-in-aid from the Government are covered by the definition of public authority
Ref: The hospital is mulling to challenge the decision in the High Court.
According to preamble of RTI-Act 2005…….
WHEREAS the Constitution of India has established democratic Republic; AND WHEREAS democracy requires an informed citizenry and transparency of information which are vital to its functioning and also to contain corruption and to hold Governments and their instrumentalities accountable to the governed; The instrumentalities of the Government are not merely instrumentalities which answer the definition of State in Article 12 of the Constitution. The obligation of the State to secure the constitutional goals, including those envisaged in the Directive Principles of State Policy is canopied by all the constitutional beacons embedded in the preamble to the Constitution. The instrumentalities which meddle with public funds or with the interest of the citizens (public duty/ function as per statue) are to be made accountable. All educational institutions are instrumentality because the management of these institutions are having some nexus with government. Public trust being a “State” was not entitled to claim protection against disclosure under Section 9 of the RTI Act.
Central Information Commission
No.CIC/AT/A/2006/00684 & CIC/AT/A/2007/00106 Block IV, 5th Floor, Old JNU Campus, New Delhi-110 067
Name of the Appellants: 1. Smt. Raj Kumari Agrawal,
Name of the Public Authority: 1. Jaipur Stock Exchange Ltd.,
Date of Hearing 25.04.2007………………….
Date of Decision 07.06.2007 …………….
There is enough merit in these submissions and the Commission agrees that an authority or an institution or a body if it is a “state” within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India, it cannot claim that it is outside the purview of the Right to Information Act,2005.
Doctrine of instrumentality According to Hon’ble Apex court of India
1. SUKHDEV SINGH & ORS V. BAGATRAM SARDAR SINGH RAGHUVANSHI & ANR  INSC 43 (21 February 1975)
2. RAMANA DAYARAM SHETTY V. THE INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT AUTHORITY OF INDIA & ORS  INSC 111 (4 May 1979)
3. UNNI KRISHNAN, J.P. & ORS ETC V. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ORS  INSC 60; AIR 1993 SC 2178; 1993 (1) SCR 594; 1993 (1) SCC 645; 1993 (1) JT 474; 1993 (1) SCALE 290 (4 February 1993)
4. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO.5067/2009
PETITIONERS :- 1. Shikshan Prasarak Mandal,Kamptee District Nagpur,
2. Shikshan Prasarak Mandal,Kamptee District Nagpur,
RESPONDENTS :- 1. The State Information Commissioner,Nagpur Bench, Nagpur.
2. Shri Bhushan Keshaorao Tijare,Modi Nagsen Nagar, Kamptee, District Nagpur.
3. The Joint Director of Education, Nagpur Division, Nagpur.
CORAM :- S.A. BOBDE ANDA.B. CHAUDHARI, JJ.
Date of reserving the judgment :- 08.07.2010
Date of pronouncing the judgment :- 10.08.2010
In the instant case, it is not in dispute that the said College run by the petitioners – Society is receiving grants-in-aid and the grants-in-aid received by the College from the Government are managed by the Society and its College. We, therefore, hold that the Non-Government Schools/ Colleges/ Institutions receiving grants-in-aid either from the State Government or the Central Government are fully covered by the definition of public authority and such Schools/Colleges are covered by the provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM WP(C) No. 4668 of 2007(E)
1. M.P.VARGHESE, SECRETARY,... Petitioner
1. THE MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY,... Respondent 2. SRI.MOHANKUMAR.R.,3., M.G.UNIVERSITY
The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN Dated :04/07/2007
9. BALMER LAWRIE & CO. LTD. & ORS. v. PARTHA SARATHI SEN ROY & ORS. 
INSC 257 (20 February 2013)
Dr Mukesh Babu Goyal