Neeraj Sharma Complainant v. National Payments Corporation Of India, New Delhi

Factual and Procedural Background

The complainant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the National Payments Corporation of India (NPCI), seeking details of the Public Information Officer (PIO) and the Appellate Authority. Upon receiving no response, the complainant filed a complaint before the Commission requesting a direction to the respondent to provide the information and to impose a penalty under Section 20 of the RTI Act for failure to provide the information. A hearing was conducted with both parties present, during which the complainant elaborated on the nature and ownership of NPCI to establish its status as a public authority under the RTI Act. Due to time constraints, the hearing was adjourned for continuation on a later date.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the National Payments Corporation of India (NPCI) qualifies as a "public authority" under Section 2(h)(i) of the Right to Information Act, 2005, given its ownership, control, and financing by the Central Government and its instrumentalities.
2. Whether the respondent NPCI is obligated to provide the complainant with the information sought under the RTI Act.
3. Whether a penalty under Section 20 of the RTI Act is warranted for the respondent's failure to provide the requested information.

Arguments of the Parties

Complainant's Arguments

• The NPCI is not established or constituted by or under the Constitution, any law made by Parliament, or by notification or order of the Central Government.
• Despite this, NPCI is owned, controlled, and substantially financed directly or indirectly by the Central Government through its instrumentalities, notably Public Sector Banks holding 67.82% of its share capital.
• The Board of Directors includes members nominated by Public Sector Banks, and the Managing Director is appointed by the Reserve Bank of India (RBI), which also regulates NPCI under the Payment and Settlement Systems Act, 2007.
• NPCI qualifies as a Government Company under Section 2(45) of the Companies Act, 2013, with audits conducted by the Comptroller and Auditor General of India (CAG).
• The Government of India allocated Rs. 500 crores to NPCI under the Digital India scheme, and government advertisements promote NPCI's computer applications, evidencing substantial government financing.
• The complainant relied on the precedent set in Central Inland Water Transport Corporation v. Brojo Nath ((1986) 3 SCC 156 : AIR 1986 SC 1571), where a government company was held to be an authority and thus part of the 'State' under Article 12 of the Constitution.
• Therefore, NPCI is a public authority under Section 2(h)(i) of the RTI Act and must provide the requested information.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court examined the nature of NPCI's establishment, ownership, control, and financing. Although NPCI is not constituted by the Constitution or by a specific law or government order, it is substantially owned and controlled by Public Sector Banks, which are instrumentalities of the Central Government. The Managing Director’s appointment by the Reserve Bank of India and regulation under the Payment and Settlement Systems Act, 2007 further indicate government control. The Government of India’s financial allocation and promotional activities for NPCI’s initiatives demonstrate substantial financing by the government. The court applied the principle from the Central Inland Water Transport Corporation case, which held that a government company is an authority and thus part of the State under Article 12. Consequently, the court found NPCI to be a public authority under Section 2(h)(i) of the RTI Act, entitling the complainant to the information requested. The hearing was adjourned before a final order was issued.

Holding and Implications

The matter was adjourned for further hearing and no final holding was issued in this interim decision.

The interim decision recognized the prima facie position that NPCI qualifies as a public authority under the RTI Act due to its ownership, control, and financing by the Central Government. The case was not concluded and no penalty or final directive was imposed at this stage. No new precedent was established beyond the application of existing principles from prior case law.