Private Schools Not 'Public Authorities' Under RTI Act but Must Display Fees: Madras HC [Read Order]

CHENNAI: The Madras High Court has held that private unaided educational institutions do not fall within the definition of 'public authority' under Section 2(h) of the Right to Information Act, 2005, and cannot be compelled to part with information or comply with directions issued by the State Information Commission. 

Justice M.Dhandapani, however, went on to hold that private schools are nonetheless bound to display their fee structure on notice boards and websites, not on the strength of the RTI Act, but because such disclosure is independently mandated under Rule 17(3) of the Tamil Nadu Private Schools (Regulation) Rules, 2023.

The writ petition was filed by the All India Private Educational Institutions Association challenging an order dated 25.05.2026 passed by the Tamil Nadu Information Commission and a consequential circular dated 01.06.2026 issued by the Director of Private Schools. The dispute traced back to an RTI application filed in October 2022 before the Chief Educational Officer, Coimbatore, seeking particulars of fee structures fixed for private matriculation and higher secondary schools. Instead of furnishing the information, the application was transferred under Section 6(3) of the RTI Act to over a hundred school principals, resulting in no information being provided within the statutory period. After two second appeals remained unresolved, the Information Commission passed sweeping directions going, in the petitioner's submission, far beyond the scope of the original application.

The Commission's order had directed compensation of Rs.25,000 against the public authority, issued show cause notices for penalty under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act against education officials, appointed the Director of Private Schools as the Public Information Officer, and directed that all private school managements, including CBSE and aided schools, display fee structures on notice boards, websites and admission forms, with compliance to be inspected and reported district-wise. The Director of Private Schools thereafter issued the impugned circular directing all private schools to publish government-fixed fee structures by 05.06.2026.

Appearing for the petitioner, counsel contended that private unaided schools are established and managed by private trusts and individuals without State funding or control, and do not satisfy any of the four criteria under Section 2(h) of the RTI Act. Reliance was placed on Central Board of Secondary Education v. Aditya Bandhopadhyay and DAV College Trust & Management Society v. Director of Public Instructions to submit that mere affiliation with a statutory board does not render a private institution a public authority. It was further argued that the Information Commission, being a creature of statute under Section 15 of the RTI Act, had no jurisdiction to pass directions in the nature of subordinate legislation, that the appointment of the Director of Private Schools as Public Information Officer under Section 19(8)(a)(ii) was a usurpation of jurisdiction since the original proceedings concerned different public authorities, and that the directions violated Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 21 for want of hearing and for indiscriminately clubbing all categories of schools together.

The Additional Advocate General, appearing for the State, defended the circular on the ground that the fee structure fixed by the Tamil Nadu Private Schools Fee Determination Committee was already published on the Committee's official website, so the direction to display the same figures at school premises created no new obligation. It was also submitted that Rule 17(3) of the 2023 Rules independently required schools to display fee particulars, a requirement that had never been under challenge, and that the circular was merely administrative in furtherance of that pre-existing obligation.

Framing three issues for consideration, the Court first examined whether private educational institutions answer the definition of 'public authority' under Section 2(h) of the RTI Act. Tracing the two-part structure of the definition through the Supreme Court's rulings in Thalappalam Ser. Co-op. Bank Ltd. v. State of Kerala and DAV College Trust & Management Society v. Director of Public Instructions, the Court noted that a body must either be established or constituted under the Constitution or by legislation or notification, or else be owned, controlled or substantially financed by the appropriate government.

"...the said body should not only be owned or substantially financed but also there should exists substantial control over the said body by the appropriate government and not merely supervisory or regulatory in nature, which alone would bring the body under the ambit of 'public authority' as defined u/s 2 (h) of the RTI Act."

Applying this test, the Court held that private educational institutions, being neither established by statute nor substantially financed or controlled by the government beyond ordinary regulatory supervision, cannot be treated as public authorities amenable to the RTI Act.

On the second and third issues, the Court held that the Information Commission's direction invoking Section 4(1)(b) of the RTI Act, which casts suo motu disclosure obligations only on public authorities, could not be extended to private schools through an administrative order. The appointment of the Director of Private Schools as Public Information Officer under Section 19(8)(a)(ii) was, however, upheld as a legitimate exercise of power once the original applicant had been denied information. The Court found that the Commission's direction compelling display of fee structures at school entrances travelled beyond its jurisdiction under the RTI Act.

The Court nonetheless declined to let the private schools off the hook entirely. Noting that Section 32 of the Tamil Nadu Private Schools (Regulation) Act, 2018 and Section 3(2) of the Tamil Nadu Schools (Regulation of Collection of Fee) Act, 2009 already prohibit private schools from collecting fees beyond what is approved, and that Rule 17(3) of the 2023 Rules independently mandates display of fee particulars on notice boards and websites a month before every academic year, the Court held that this statutory obligation survives independently of the flawed RTI order.

"...though the 3rd respondent may have passed the order beyond its jurisdiction, nevertheless, when Rule 17 (3) provides for the display of the fee structure in the notice board and website of the private schools, which is to be followed by the private schools and monitored by the 2nd respondent, the circular issued by the 2nd respondent cannot be said to be impermissible, merely because it is on the basis of the directions issued by the 3rd respondent..."

Exercising its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, the Court directed all private schools recognised under the Private Schools Act, including those within the petitioner association, to display the fee structure fixed by the Fee Determination Committee, as well as all other fees approved under Section 32 of the Act, on their notice boards and websites, to be updated one month before the commencement of every academic year.

The Court also set aside the portion of the Commission's order imposing penalty on the officials of the Director of Private Schools and directing payment of compensation to the original complainant, holding that the fee information sought was never in the possession of those officials and that no specific infraction attracting penalty under Section 20 of the RTI Act had been made out.

The writ petition was accordingly disposed of, with the impugned order and circular held unsustainable insofar as they rested on the RTI Act, while the substantive obligation to display fee structures was preserved on independent statutory footing under the Private Schools Rules. Connected miscellaneous petitions were closed, with no order as to costs.

Case Title: All India Private Educational Institutions Association v. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors., W.P.No.21240 of 2026

[Read Order]