The Madras High Court, through a judgment delivered by Justice M Dhandapani, addressed a petition that sought information under the Right to Information Act, 2005 regarding the fee structure of a private unaided school. The petitioner contended that the school, despite being privately managed, should be treated as a public authority for the purposes of the RTI Act because it provides an essential service to the public.
After examining the submissions, the Court observed that the definition of a public authority under Section 2(h) of the RTI Act includes bodies that are substantially financed, directly or indirectly, by funds provided by the appropriate government. The Court noted that the private unaided school in question did not receive any significant financial assistance from the State or Central Government. Its primary source of income was tuition fees paid by parents and other private contributions. On this basis, the Court concluded that the school does not fall within the ambit of a public authority as envisaged by the RTI Act.
The Court further explained that the RTI Act is designed to promote transparency in governmental functioning and does not extend to purely private entities that operate without substantial public funding. Extending the Act to such institutions would impose an unreasonable burden on them and would be contrary to the legislative intent. Accordingly, the Court dismissed the plea for information under the RTI Act, holding that the petitioner could not invoke the Act to obtain details of the school’s fee structure.
Although the RTI claim was rejected, the Court turned to the regulatory framework governing private schools in Tamil Nadu. It referred to the Tamil Nadu Private Schools (Regulation) Rules, 2012, which are framed under the Tamil Nadu Private Schools Act, 1961. The Rules stipulate that every private school must display certain information at a conspicuous place, preferably at the entrance of the institution. The required details include the fee structure, particulars of infrastructure available, staff strength, and pupil strength.
Justice M Dhandapani emphasized that the objective of these rules is to ensure that parents and guardians are adequately informed about the financial and infrastructural aspects of the school before admitting their children. The Court held that the display requirement is a statutory obligation and non‑compliance may attract penalties under the Rules, including fines or directions to rectify the default.
The Court directed the school authorities to comply with the display mandate without delay. It also clarified that the obligation to display the fee structure is independent of the RTI Act and derives solely from the state regulatory regime. The judgment thus delineates two separate regimes: the RTI Act, which does not apply to private unaided schools lacking substantial government funding, and the Tamil Nadu Private Schools (Regulation) Rules, which impose specific transparency obligations on such institutions.
In its reasoning, the Court noted that allowing RTI applications against private unaided schools could lead to a proliferation of claims that would distract the institutions from their core educational functions. At the same time, the Court recognized the legitimate interest of parents in knowing the financial details of schools, which is already catered for by the state rules. The judgment therefore balances the need for transparency with the limits of statutory applicability.
The decision provides clarity for private educational institutions across Tamil Nadu regarding their disclosure obligations. It affirms that while they are not subject to the RTI Act, they must adhere to the display requirements prescribed by the State Government. The ruling is expected to reduce litigation concerning RTI pleas against private schools and encourage compliance with the existing regulatory framework for the benefit of students and their families.