Should private trusts or foundations that receive indirect state benefits (land, tax concessions) be brought within the ambit of RTI? Discuss with examples.

Section 2(h) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 covers bodies "owned, controlled or substantially financed", directly or indirectly, by government — including non-government organisations [1]. Whether indirect benefits like concessional land and tax exemption amount to such financing remains unsettled, and a calibrated, benefit-linked extension of RTI is warranted.

Case for inclusion

• Foregone revenue is public money: subsidised land and tax exemptions are an indirect transfer from the exchequer, squarely within the "indirectly financed" limb of Section 2(h)(ii) [1].
• Judicial backing: in D.A.V. College Trust and Management Society v. Director of Public Instructions (2019), the Supreme Court read "substantially financed" expansively, holding heavily aided societies answerable under RTI [2].
• Analogous precedent: the CIC in 2013 declared six national political parties public authorities, relying precisely on income-tax exemption and concessional allotment of land for party offices [3].
• Parallel disclosure regimes exist: the FCRA, 2010 already obliges associations receiving foreign contribution to file annual returns, showing private bodies can bear transparency duties [4].

Case for caution

• Judicial limits: in Thalappalam Ser. Coop. Bank v. State of Kerala (2013), the Court held that mere regulation or occasional aid is not "substantial financing"; an over-broad reading erodes the autonomy of genuinely private bodies [2].
• Unresolved application: the CIC held the Rajiv Gandhi Foundation not a public authority (2010); the 2011 writ challenging it was dismissed by the Delhi High Court in August 2026 on non-prosecution, leaving the merits undecided after fifteen years [5].
• Practical costs: compliance burden on small trusts and donor-privacy concerns.

A workable middle path is proportionate disclosure — where the state benefit is quantifiable and continuing, RTI obligations should attach to the funded activity rather than the entire trust, with the concession valued and notified. Codifying such a threshold through statutory clarification would honour the Act's own preamble that an informed citizenry is essential to containing corruption and holding governments accountable.