RTI for NGOs and Privately Aided Institutions: When Can You RTI a Private Body?

Most people think of the RTI Act as a tool you use against government departments — the PWD, the municipal corporation, the income tax office, the university. That perception is understandable. The RTI Act, 2005 is after all a law about government accountability. But its reach is broader than the visible government.

Section 2(h) of the Act defines "public authority" — the category of bodies to which RTI obligations apply. Tucked into that definition, in sub-section (d)(ii), is a provision that quietly extends RTI to a potentially large universe of private bodies: non-government organisations "substantially financed, directly or indirectly, by funds provided by the appropriate Government."

That single provision is the basis for RTI rights against government-aided private schools, aided colleges, NGOs implementing government welfare schemes, and — in some cases — hospitals and cooperative institutions receiving substantial government support. Understanding when the provision applies, when it does not, and how to navigate the uncertainty in between is the subject of this guide.

1. The Legal Foundation: Section 2(h)(d)(ii)

The full text of Section 2(h) defines "public authority" to include:

"a non-Government organisation substantially financed, directly or indirectly, by funds provided by the appropriate Government."

This definition is deliberately broad in one direction and deliberately vague in another. It is broad in the sense that it covers any non-government organisation — not just registered trusts or NGOs in the narrow sense, but any entity that is not itself a government body. It is vague in the sense that it does not define what "substantially financed" means.

The phrase "appropriate Government" means the Central Government for Central Government-funded bodies and the relevant State Government for State Government-funded bodies. Both levels of government funding can trigger this provision.

The phrase "directly or indirectly" matters too. Government funding does not have to flow straight from a ministry's budget line to the NGO's bank account. It can flow through an intermediary body — a registered society, a government corporation, a nodal agency — and still count as government funding for the purpose of this provision, if the ultimate source is government money.

This provision is what makes the RTI Act relevant not just to bureaucrats and government officers but to a far wider set of institutions that interact with citizens in important ways: the school where your child studies, the hospital that treats your family under a government scheme, the NGO running the welfare programme in your neighbourhood.

2. What "Substantially Financed" Actually Means

The RTI Act does not define a percentage threshold for "substantially financed." There is no rule that says 50% government funding makes an institution a public authority, or that 30% does not. This was a deliberate choice by the drafters — or perhaps an unresolved ambiguity — and it has generated significant litigation.

The most important judicial pronouncement on this question came from the Supreme Court of India in Thalappalam Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. & Ors. v. State of Kerala (2013). The Court examined the phrase in some depth. Several principles emerged from that decision and the broader judicial conversation it reflects:

"Substantial" means going to the core functioning of the institution. Government funding is "substantial" when it is of such magnitude and nature that the institution depends on it — when without that funding, the institution could not survive or function in the manner it does. A grant that goes to the heart of the institution's operations (paying its teachers, funding its infrastructure, covering its running costs) is different from a project-specific grant that the institution uses for a single defined purpose.

A one-time or project-specific grant does not automatically qualify. An NGO that received a government grant to run a community health camp last year, but primarily sustains itself through private donations and membership fees, is not a public authority under this provision. The government funding was incidental and limited in scope. This is an important limit: the provision does not convert every NGO that has ever received government money into a public authority.

The question is one of degree and proportion. Courts have looked at whether government funding constitutes a major share of the institution's total revenue, whether the institution could realistically continue to function at all without that funding, and whether the funding supports the institution's primary activities or merely a peripheral component of its work.

Government "control" is not the same as government "financing." This is a critical distinction — one the Supreme Court made explicitly in the Thalappalam case. The mere fact that a government officer sits on an institution's governing board, or that the state has regulatory oversight over the institution, or that the state can inspect its accounts, does not make the institution "substantially financed" by government. Regulation is not funding. Control is not financing. The provision in Section 2(h)(d)(ii) is about money, not authority.

What this means in practice is that the RTI analysis for a given institution is a factual inquiry, not a categorical one. There is no pre-determined list of institution types that are automatically in or out. The question is always: does this specific institution, in its specific financial circumstances, receive government funding that is substantial enough to bring it within the definition?

3. Aided Private Schools

Government-aided private schools are probably the most common context in which citizens encounter this question. In most Indian states, the state government "aids" private schools — typically by paying a substantial portion or all of the teaching staff's salaries through a government grant. In some cases, the state also provides infrastructure grants or funds the purchase of books, uniforms, and midday meals.

Where the state government is paying the salaries of teachers — which in most aided schools represents the largest single component of running costs — that is a strong indicator of "substantial financing." The school is, in a real sense, financially dependent on government money for its core activity of employing teachers to educate students.

What you can ask an aided private school under RTI

Teacher appointment process and qualifications: Are teachers appointed through a transparent process? What criteria and qualifications were applied? Was a selection committee constituted as required by the rules? RTI can get you the appointment orders and the selection process documentation.

Fee structure and accounts: Aided private schools in most states are required to comply with fee regulation and to maintain accounts showing how government grants are utilized. You can ask for the audited accounts showing the government grant received and how it was spent.

Admission criteria for government-mandated reserved seats: Many aided schools are required to reserve a percentage of seats for economically weaker sections (EWS) under Section 12 of the Right to Education Act or under state fee-aid scheme conditions. How those seats are filled is a public interest matter. RTI can get you the criteria and the list of admissions made against those seats.

Government grant utilization: The school receives government money. How was it spent? Was the full amount spent on teacher salaries, or was a portion diverted? The records of grant utilization submitted to the education department are accessible.

Action taken on infrastructure complaints: If a parent has complained to the school administration or the district education officer about inadequate infrastructure, the response — or non-response — to that complaint is an official record.

What about unaided private schools?

An unaided private school — one that does not receive government grants for teacher salaries or other operational costs — is generally not a public authority under the RTI Act. The Right to Education Act imposes some obligations on it (like the 25% EWS admission requirement), but those obligations are imposed by law, not by a funding relationship. The school is not "substantially financed" by government simply because it must follow a law.

If you are unsure whether a particular school is aided or unaided, you can ask the state government's education department — which is itself an RTI-covered body — to provide a list of government-aided schools in the district along with the quantum of annual grant paid to each.

4. Aided Private Colleges and Universities

The analysis for colleges and universities is similar to schools, but the structure of aid is often more varied.

Some private colleges receive state government grants for permanent teaching posts — the government pays the UGC pay scale of college teachers, and the college tops up with its own funds (if it chooses). Others receive infrastructure grants, library grants, or research grants. Still others receive specific scheme funds under the UGC or the Central Government (such as under the National Education Mission or Rashtriya Uchhatar Shiksha Abhiyan).

Where the grant is substantial relative to the institution's total finances and goes to its core academic functions, the institution is likely a public authority. Where the institution receives only a minor or one-off project grant, the case is weaker.

What you can ask

Academic staff appointment process: Were posts advertised as required? Were selection committees properly constituted? This matters especially where appointments are alleged to be irregular or influenced.

Examination and result records: Did the college conduct an internal examination properly? Are the marks awarded consistent with the answer sheets? RTI can compel production of evaluated answer sheets (the Supreme Court has held that evaluated answer sheets are information accessible under RTI).

Fee utilization: In aided colleges, the government grant is meant to subsidise the cost of education, keeping fees lower than they would otherwise be. If fees have risen substantially despite a growing government grant, the accounts are a public interest matter.

Admission process for government-quota seats: Many aided professional colleges (engineering, medical, law) have seats filled by a state-level centralised admissions process. The records of that process — merit lists, allotment orders, whether cut-offs were correctly applied — are accessible through the relevant state admissions authority, which is itself a public authority.

5. NGOs Implementing Government Welfare Schemes

This is the most factually complex category, and the one where the "substantially financed" test does the most work.

India has an enormous implementation infrastructure in which NGOs and voluntary organisations deliver government welfare schemes at the field level. Integrated Child Development Services (ICDS) anganwadis are sometimes run through NGOs in particular states. Social audit processes under MGNREGS may be facilitated by NGOs. Literacy programmes, vocational training schemes, and rehabilitation programmes are often implemented through registered voluntary organisations that receive substantial Central or State scheme funding.

Where the NGO is receiving government funding that is substantial relative to its total resources — and using that funding to implement a government scheme — there is a strong case that it is a public authority for the purposes of that scheme's implementation.

What you can ask

Grant utilization: How has the government grant been spent? What was the amount received for the current financial year and how was it distributed across programme activities? Were the expenditures in line with the scheme guidelines?

Beneficiary selection criteria: Who is eligible for the scheme being implemented? How were the specific beneficiaries selected? Was the selection process transparent and in line with the government's prescribed eligibility criteria? If you or someone you know was wrongly excluded from a government scheme being implemented by an NGO, this is the RTI question.

Programme implementation records: How many beneficiaries were served? What activities were conducted on what dates? Where are the attendance registers and implementation reports?

The limit of this provision

An NGO that receives a small grant from a state government for a one-year project — say, a grant to run a legal awareness camp — but primarily sustains itself through donor funding, membership subscriptions, or foreign contributions is not a public authority. The one project grant is not "substantial financing." Its primary source of funds is not the government.

The test, again, is whether government money is the financial foundation of the institution's functioning, or whether it is merely a supplementary or incidental source of funds.

6. Cooperative Societies: The Thalappalam Ruling

Cooperative societies occupy a special place in this analysis because the Thalappalam Supreme Court case (2013) specifically and directly addressed them.

The factual context of the case involved a service cooperative bank in Kerala. The State sought to bring it under RTI on the basis that it was subject to significant government regulation and oversight — government-appointed officers, government audits, state control over management. The cooperative resisted, arguing that it was not a public authority because it was not substantially financed by government.

The Supreme Court drew a sharp line between government control and government financing:

A cooperative society may be subject to extensive state regulation — its management can be superseded, its accounts can be audited by government officers, its officers are bound by state cooperative law. But all of this is the exercise of state regulatory power, not the provision of state money to fund the society's operations.

The Court held that cooperative societies registered under state cooperative societies acts are not automatically public authorities under Section 2(h)(d)(ii). The fact that they are subject to state control does not make them "substantially financed" by government. Regulation is not financing.

This does not mean cooperatives are categorically outside RTI. It means the question is still a financial one: if a cooperative receives substantial direct financial assistance from government — loans at subsidised rates, recapitalisation grants, operational subsidies — that is a different factual situation. The question is always about money, not control.

For most ordinary cooperative societies — housing cooperatives, credit cooperatives, consumer cooperatives — the Thalappalam ruling means they are likely not public authorities unless they can be shown to receive substantial government financial support.

7. Hospitals Run by Private Trusts Under Government Arrangements

Some hospitals in India operate under arrangements that combine private trust management with significant government involvement — they sit on government land given on lease, they receive government grants for infrastructure, or they operate under Public-Private Partnership (PPP) agreements with state health departments. Under these arrangements, the hospital is required to provide free treatment to a specified number of patients (often the poor or those covered under state health schemes).

Where the arrangement involves substantial government financing — whether through land allocation, grant funding, or revenue guarantees — the hospital may be a public authority for the purposes of RTI.

What you can ask

Terms of the PPP agreement or the land grant: On what terms does the hospital hold the government land? What are its obligations — how many free beds, at what income threshold, for which categories of patients? These terms are a matter of public interest and the agreement itself, being a document held by a government department, is accessible through the government party to the agreement.

Free bed utilization records: Is the hospital actually providing the free beds it is contractually obligated to provide? How many free-bed beneficiaries were admitted in the last year? What was the actual expenditure on free-bed cases? If the hospital is not complying with its obligations under the PPP agreement, that non-compliance is a public interest matter.

Complaint action: If you or a family member was denied the free treatment that the hospital is obligated to provide under its agreement with the government, the records of how your complaint was handled — both by the hospital and by the relevant government department — are accessible.

8. When You Are Unsure: What Citizens Can Do

The "substantially financed" test is, as the preceding sections make clear, a factual one. There will be cases where it is obvious (the state government pays 90% of an aided school's teacher salaries) and cases where it is not (an NGO receives a modest state grant but is funded primarily by international donors). And there will be a substantial middle ground where it is genuinely unclear.

Here is a practical approach for navigating that uncertainty.

Step 1: File the RTI application anyway

There is no harm in filing. The RTI Act does not require you to establish in advance that the body is a public authority — you file, and if the body believes it is not covered, it is obligated to tell you so in writing, with its reasoning, rather than simply ignoring you. A response that says "we are not a public authority under Section 2(h)" is still a response, and it is a response on the record.

If the body does not respond at all — neither providing the information nor asserting that it is not covered — that silence can itself be taken to the Information Commission.

Step 2: Ask the body to explain its basis for non-coverage

If the body asserts that it is not a public authority, ask it (in writing, through a follow-up RTI application or through your First Appeal) to:

• State the total funding received from government sources in the last three financial years and as a percentage of total income.
• Identify the government departments or agencies from which it received funding.
• Provide the basis (legal and factual) for its assertion that it is not substantially financed by government.

This creates a record. If the body claims not to be substantially financed, it must say so explicitly. If it turns out that government funding is in fact substantial, that disclosure can be used in subsequent proceedings.

Step 3: File a Section 18 complaint with the CIC or SIC

Section 18 of the RTI Act gives the Information Commission — the CIC for Central Government bodies and the relevant State Information Commission (SIC) for state government-funded bodies — jurisdiction to receive complaints about public authorities' failure to comply with the Act. This includes the question of whether a body is a public authority at all.

You can file a complaint under Section 18 asking the Commission to determine whether the body in question is a public authority covered by the Act. The Commission has jurisdiction to make that determination, and its decision will establish the body's RTI obligations going forward.

This is a more involved step than simply filing an RTI application, but it is available and has been used successfully in cases where institutions have wrongly claimed to be outside the Act's coverage.

9. Practical Tips for RTI Applications to Aided and NGO Bodies

If you are filing with a body that is covered (or you believe is covered) under Section 2(h)(d)(ii), a few practical points will improve the quality and success of your application.

Address the RTI to the head of the institution, not the government department. The RTI obligation belongs to the institution itself — the aided school, the NGO, the cooperative hospital. The school principal or the NGO's executive director is the effective CPIO (Central/State Public Information Officer). If the institution has not formally designated a CPIO, file with the institutional head and let them sort out the internal designation.

State your basis for believing the institution is substantially financed. This is not legally required under the Act, but it is practically useful. A sentence in your application noting, for example, "as this school receives government grants for teacher salaries under the state's aided schools scheme" establishes your factual premise on the record and makes it harder for the institution to claim it did not understand why you believe it is covered.

Identify the second appeal body correctly.

• If the institution is substantially financed by the Central Government (funded under a Central scheme, receiving Central grants directly or through a Central nodal agency), the First Appeal goes to the institution's own First Appellate Authority, and the Second Appeal under Section 19(3) goes to the Central Information Commission (CIC).
• If the institution is substantially financed by a State Government, the Second Appeal goes to the State Information Commission (SIC) of that state.

Keep the first appeal deadline in mind. Under Section 19(1), a First Appeal must be filed within 30 days of the date of the CPIO's decision or the expiry of the 30-day response period, whichever is applicable. Missing this deadline can cause procedural complications, though commissions have some discretion to condone delays on sufficient cause.

Do not conflate RTI coverage with regulation. As the Thalappalam judgment makes clear, the fact that an institution is regulated, inspected, audited, or supervised by government does not make it a public authority. The question is always about financing, not regulatory oversight.

10. A Note on the Limits of This Provision

It is important to be clear about what Section 2(h)(d)(ii) does not do.

It does not make every private school a public authority. Unaided private schools — even those subject to RTE Act obligations, CBSE affiliation rules, or state board regulations — are not public authorities simply because they comply with those regulations.

It does not make every NGO that has ever received a government grant a public authority. A small project grant does not create RTI obligations for an organisation whose primary funding comes from elsewhere.

It does not make private hospitals public authorities merely because they treat patients covered by government health schemes like Ayushman Bharat. Receiving reimbursements from a government insurance scheme for treating enrolled beneficiaries is a different relationship from being "substantially financed" by government in the sense the Act contemplates. (Whether the specific financial terms of a given empanelment agreement might in some cases amount to substantial financing is a factual question — but the mere empanelment does not automatically trigger coverage.)

The Act's reach through this provision is real and significant, but it has genuine limits. Those limits matter as much as the coverage.

Why This Matters

The institutions covered by Section 2(h)(d)(ii) are, in many cases, among the most important service providers that ordinary Indian citizens interact with — schools, colleges, health facilities, welfare programme implementers. These are not peripheral actors. In a country where much of public welfare delivery is routed through aided institutions, voluntary organisations, and cooperative structures, bringing them within the accountability framework of the RTI Act is a meaningful extension of transparency.

At the same time, the "substantially financed" requirement is a threshold that exists for a reason. Not every private body that touches public life is thereby a public authority. The question is whether government money is the financial foundation of the institution's functioning — because that is the relationship that creates the accountability obligation.

When the answer to that question is yes, citizens have a right to know how that money was used, how decisions were made, and whether obligations were fulfilled. RTI is the mechanism to enforce that right.

How RTISathi Can Help

Identifying whether a body is covered under Section 2(h)(d)(ii), knowing the right CPIO to address, and framing questions that go to the heart of grant utilization, beneficiary selection, or institutional conduct can be the difference between a productive RTI application and a procedurally deflected one. If you are dealing with an aided school, a government-funded NGO, or any other institution where the question of RTI coverage is in play, RTISathi.com can help you navigate the analysis, draft a precise application, and guide you through the First Appeal and Section 18 complaint process if the institution resists.