What are the criteria for classifying an entity as a 'public authority' under Section 2(h) of the RTI Act? In light of the NSE judgment, examine whether Self-Regulatory Organisations (SROs) in India should be brought under RTI.

Section 2(h) of the RTI Act, 2005 defines a 'public authority' through a functional test, not the form of incorporation [1]. The Delhi High Court's July 2026 ruling that the National Stock Exchange (NSE) — a company under the Companies Act — is a public authority has revived the question of whether SROs must also open up.

Criteria under Section 2(h)

• First limb — mode of creation: a body established or constituted by or under the Constitution, by a law of Parliament or State Legislature, or by notification or order of the appropriate government [1].
• Second limb — government nexus: any body owned, controlled or substantially financed, directly or indirectly, by government funds; also NGOs so financed [1].
• Consequential test: courts read these purposively — an entity that cannot exist or function without statutory sanction, or is under deep and pervasive control, is covered.

The NSE judgment's logic

• SEBI's recognition under Section 4(3), SCRA 1956 is indispensable for NSE to operate as an exchange, and Section 29 SCRA deems it a Central Government order — satisfying the first limb [2].
• Pervasive SEBI oversight over listing, governance and trading satisfied the control test; the ruling is presently stayed by the Supreme Court pending appeal [4].

Should SROs be brought under RTI?

• Case for: SROs are the first-level regulator of their segment, mandated to protect investors and enforce securities law under the SEBI (SRO) Regulations, 2004 [3] — a public duty; opacity enabled failures like NSE's co-location episode.
• Case against: they are member-funded, hold price-sensitive and commercial data, and blanket disclosure could raise compliance costs; mere regulation does not equal government establishment.
• Balanced view: extend RTI only to SROs whose recognition is statutorily indispensable, with Section 8 exemptions shielding commercial confidence [1].

Transparency of institutions performing public functions is the surest guarantee of market integrity. A calibrated, function-linked extension of RTI — rather than a blanket sweep — would keep SROs accountable to investors while preserving regulatory efficiency, advancing the Act's own preambular goal of an informed citizenry and accountable governance.