‘We are not dictatorship’: Madras High Court upholds citizens’ right to know under RTI

Justice V Lakshminarayanan was hearing a writ petition filed by the Public Information Officer-cum-Administrator General and Official Trustee of Tamil Nadu against an order of the Tamil Nadu State Information Commission (TNSIC), which had directed disclosure of the balance sheets, audit reports, immovable property register, and demand, collection, and arrears records of the V Thiruvengadathan Chetty Charities.

“This country, by its Preamble, declares it to be a sovereign, socialist, secular democratic republic. We are not a dictatorship nor do we live under an iron curtain, for the public authorities to retain information and keep it away from the citizenry,” the court said on June 4, tracing the constitutional roots of the citizen‘s right to know.

The case stemmed from an RTI application filed by S Srikumar, a member of the Arya Vysya community, who sought the trust’s financial records after raising concerns that the charity had reduced educational assistance to beneficiaries to Rs 50,000, citing a lack of funds. He sought to examine whether the trust’s finances justified the reduced assistance and whether its funds were being managed in accordance with the objects of the trust.

if information is sought to be used for voyeuristic pleasure, which would affect the right to privacy of another individual, the same has to be refused under RTI. (File image)

On August 17, 2023, Srikumar sought copies of the trust’s balance sheets for the previous five financial years, audit reports, immovable property register, demand, collection, and arrears details, besides a copy of the founder’s will and earlier court orders.

While the official trustee furnished certain judicial records, it refused to disclose the will and financial documents, claiming they were exempt under Section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act as information held in a fiduciary capacity.

The first appellate authority upheld the refusal. However, on October 3, 2025, the Tamil Nadu State Information Commission directed the official trustee to disclose the financial records after finding that the trust was a public charitable trust and that a larger public interest warranted disclosure.

Challenging that order, the official trustee approached the high court.

Story continues below this ad

Right to know part of Constitution

Justice Lakshminarayanan said that the right to information is not merely a statutory right but flows from Articles 19(1)(a) and 21 of the Constitution. Referring to landmark Supreme Court decisions beginning with State of Uttar Pradesh vs Raj Narain, S P Gupta vs Union of India, Reliance Petrochemicals Limited v s Indian Express Newspapers, and the ‘Electoral Bonds’ judgment, the court held that citizens have a constitutional right to know how public authorities function. The court said that secrecy cannot become the norm in a democratic republic.

The high court further pointed out that the principle of transparency in the functioning of the official trustee is not a new concept. It said that even the colonial-era rules governing the office, framed over a century ago, required openness and permitted beneficiaries to inspect trust records, allowing only genuinely confidential information to be withheld.

“Even the colonial Government wanted the Official Trustee to be open and transparent. This position prevailed 113 years ago. Only such information, which was confidential, was called upon to be withheld from the beneficiaries,” the court said.

If such transparency existed under British rule, the court said, there was even less justification for withholding information after the enactment of the RTI Act, which has further narrowed the grounds on which public authorities can refuse disclosure.

Story continues below this ad

“This shows that disclosure is the name of the game under the Rules, and refusal of information is only an exception. By virtue of the Right to Information Act, the scope of refusal has been further reduced,” the high court added.

The court accepted the information commission’s finding that disclosure served a larger public interest because the trust was created to provide educational assistance to economically weaker members of the Arya Vysya community.

According to the judgment, greater transparency would allow beneficiaries and members of the community to understand how the trust’s funds were being spent and whether financial constraints cited by the trust were genuine. “The balance sheets, audit report, immovable property register, demand, collection and arrear details of each of those properties satisfy the larger public interest,” the court said.

The high court also rejected the argument that the official trustee should be treated as an extension of the judiciary. The court held that the official trustee is appointed by the Government under the Official Trustees Act, 1913, functions as a statutory authority and therefore qualifies as a “public authority” under Section 2(h) of the RTI Act. “The Office of the Official Trustee is not a part of the sovereign function of the judiciary. He is a statutory authority and remains one,” the court said.

Story continues below this ad

‘Right to Information integral part of right to know’

Right to information is an integral part of right to know.

Unless and until, a person gets access to the information, he / she will not be in a position to know as to how a public authority functions.

This right to know has not been expressly enumerated as a fundamental right under Part-III of the Constitution.

Yet, realizing the importance, the Supreme Court, atleast 50 years ago, held that citizens have a Right to be informed about official functions and public acts.

Interpreting Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution, the Supreme Court declared that every citizen have a right to be informed.

The Supreme Court held that the right to know is an essential ingredient of a free and open Government.

The fate of a nation will obviously take precedence over the interests of an individual.

Similarly, if information is sought to be used for voyeuristic pleasure, which would affect the right to privacy of another individual, the same has to be refused.

Rejecting another argument advanced by the petitioner, the court held that while the Official Trustees Act is a special legislation governing trustees, the RTI Act is the special law dealing with access to information.

Since Parliament expressly gave the RTI Act overriding effect through Section 22, information cannot be denied unless it squarely falls within one of the statutory exemptions, the court added. The court further observed that records regularly submitted by the official trustee to the government during audits cannot simultaneously be withheld from beneficiaries.

The court, however, upheld the refusal to provide a copy of the founder’s will under the RTI Act, holding that it forms part of judicial records and can instead be obtained by following the procedure prescribed under the Madras High Court Original Side Rules.

Finding no infirmity in the information commission’s order, the high court dismissed the writ petition and directed the official trustee to furnish the financial records sought under Clause 4 of the RTI application within two weeks from the date of uploading of the judgment.

Story continues below this ad

The court also imposed costs of Rs 10,000 on the incumbent official trustee, making it clear that the amount shall not be paid from the trust’s funds. “The cost shall not be borne out of the funds or accounts of the Trust,” the court directed.