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

Factual and Procedural Background

The complainant filed an RTI application dated 10.12.2016 before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), National Payments Corporation of India (NPCI), seeking details including the identity of the PIO and Appellate Authority under the RTI Act and publication of these details on the NPCI website. The CPIO did not respond to the RTI application. Consequently, the complainant lodged a complaint dated 07.04.2017 before the Commission alleging non-supply of information. During the hearing on 01.11.2018, the complainant admitted that NPCI was not established by the Constitution, Parliament, or Central Government notification but argued that NPCI is substantially financed and controlled indirectly by the Central Government through Public Sector Banks and regulatory oversight by the Reserve Bank of India. The complainant relied on the precedent of Central Inland Water Transport Corporation v. Brojo Nath to assert that NPCI qualifies as a public authority under the RTI Act. The hearings were adjourned multiple times due to administrative reasons and absence of the respondent, with the matter scheduled next for 13.03.2019.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the NPCI qualifies as a "public authority" under Section 2(h)(i) of the RTI Act, given its ownership, control, and financing by the Central Government or its instrumentalities.
2. Whether the PIO is obligated to provide the requested information in the form of a certified copy.
3. Whether penalty under Section 20 of the RTI Act should be imposed on the PIO for failure to provide information within the stipulated 30 days.

Arguments of the Parties

Complainant's Arguments

• NPCI, though not established by the Constitution or Central Government notification, is owned, controlled, and substantially financed directly or indirectly by the Central Government through 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, which also regulates NPCI under the Payment and Settlement Systems Act, 2007.
• NPCI is considered 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, indicating substantial government financing.
• Reliance on the Supreme Court decision in Central Inland Water Transport Corporation v. Brojo Nath to support that a government company is an authority and thus falls within the definition of ‘State’ under Article 12 and a public authority under the RTI Act.
• Therefore, NPCI should be treated as a public authority and required to provide the requested information.

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the respondent’s arguments.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court examined the nature of NPCI’s establishment, ownership, control, and financing. Although NPCI was not created by the Constitution or a Central Government notification, the Court noted the substantial indirect control and financing by the Central Government through Public Sector Banks and regulatory oversight by the Reserve Bank of India. The Court considered the complainant’s reliance on the precedent in Central Inland Water Transport Corporation v. Brojo Nath, which held that a government company is an authority and thus a ‘State’ under Article 12. Based on these considerations, the Court found that NPCI qualifies as a public authority under Section 2(h)(i) of the RTI Act, thereby entitling the complainant to the requested information. However, the Court emphasized that the respondent’s hearing was necessary to ascertain all facts and hence adjourned the matter for further hearing.

Holding and Implications

The Court adjourned the matter to 13.03.2019 at 03:00 PM to allow for hearing of the respondent and proper disposal of the case.

The decision establishes that entities like NPCI, though not directly constituted by law, may be considered public authorities under the RTI Act if they are substantially financed and controlled by the Central Government or its instrumentalities. This has implications for the scope of public authorities under the RTI Act but no final ruling on the reliefs sought was made at this stage. No new precedent was set by this order.