“Public authority” is any authority that has a legal mandate to govern, administer a part or aspect of public life. How is the conception of public authority under the RTI Act different vis a vis “State” under Article 12? Discuss in light of SC judgments.

Demand of the Question: Introduction: Start with meaning of Public Authority Body: What constitutes “state” under Art 12. Include SC Cases to substantiate answer. How is “state” different from public authorities under Sec 2(h) of RTI Act. Conclusion: why public authorities are having wider meaning then ‘state’ under Art 12.
MODEL ANSWER: A public authority is an authority that has a legal mandate to govern, administer a part or aspect of public life. It is a body that has public or statutory duties to perform for the benefit of the public and not for private profit. The primary function of these authorities is the protection of the public interest.

Definition Of State under Art-12:-
Article 12 defines the term ‘state’ and says that unless the context otherwise requires the term ‘State’ includes the following;

1. The Government and Parliament of India, i.e., Executive and Legislature of the Union.
2. The Government and Legislature of each State, i.e., Executive and Legislature of State.
3. All local and other authorities within the territory of India.
4. All local and other authorities under the control of the Government of India.

Public Authority under Right To Information Act: The RTI Act defines “public authorities” in Section 2(h) –
A “public authority” means any authority or body or institution of self- government established or constituted –

1. By or under the Constitution;
2. By any other law made by Parliament;
3. By any other law made by State Legislature;
4. By notification issued or order made by the appropriate Government, and includes any –
   a) Body owned, controlled or substantially financed; b) Non-Government organization substantially financed, directly or indirectly by funds provided by the appropriate Government

INTERPRETATION OF ARTICLE 12 BY COURT In the State of West Bengal v Subodh Gopal Bose, the Supreme Court observed that the object of Part III of the Indian Constitution is to provide protection to the rights and freedoms guaranteed under this part by the invasion of ‘State’. Individuals need constitutional protections against the state. The rights which are given to the citizens by way of fundamental rights as included in Part III of the Constitution are guaranteed against State action as distinguished from the violation of such rights from private parties. Private action is sufficiently protected by the ordinary law of the land. DOES JUDICIARY FALLS UNDER STATE? 1. In the case, Naresh Mirajkar v. the State of Maharashtra, it is observed by the court that while exercising the rulemaking powers the judiciary is covered by the expression state under Art.12 but while performing its judicial functions it is not included. 2. So, it can be concluded that when judiciary acts in its judicial capacity it is not State under Article 12. But when judiciary acts in an administrative capacity or rule-making body it is included within the meaning of “other authorities” and therefore, it is State under Article 12. PUBLIC AUTHORITY UNDER RTI 1. In the case of M.P. Varghese vs. Mahatma Gandhi University, it was observed that the definition of ‘public authority’ has a much wider meaning than that of ‘State” under Art. 12. 2. Further, the definition of “State” under Article 12 is primarily in relation to enforcement of fundamental rights through Courts, whereas the RTI Act is intended at achieving the object of providing an effective framework for effectuating the right to information recognized under Art 19 of the Constitution of India. NGOs WITH SUBSTANTIAL GOVERNMENT FUNDING COME UNDER RTI 1. In the case of Sri Subhash Chandra Agrawal v Delhi & District Cricket Association, it was held by C.I.C that DDCA, though an NGO, is being substantially financed is the Public Authority as defined under section 2(h) of RTI Act, on both questions of law and facts. 2. Recently, the Supreme Court in D.A.V. College Trust and Management Society Vs. Director of Public Instructions held that non-governmental organizations which were substantially financed by the appropriate government fall within the ambit of ‘public authority’ under Section 2(h) of the Right to Information Act, 2005. This Judgement will have wide ramifications as now political parties will also be included in the ambit of RTI. OFFICE OF CJI UNDER RTI 1. In The CPIO, Supreme Court of India Vs Subhash Chandra Aggarwal a 5 bench judgment, said that “Transparency and accountability should go hand in hand” and brought the office of CJI under RTI. 2. In the same judgment mentioned above, SC in case of private organization clarified that ‘information’ not presently available or held by the public authority but which can be accessed by the public authority from a private body under any other law for the time being in force’ is also public information. Thus, all private Organisations come within the ambit of the RTI Act. It is a settled proposition of law that the definition of the term ‘public authority’ is wider than the scope of the term ‘state’ as defined in Article 12 of the Constitution. Above are some examples of public authorities that are not ‘state’. This definition is wide and covers even those organizations that do not enjoy a constitutional monopoly

Parliament’s responsibility, goes beyond working for long hours and passing a record number of bills, the focus should also be on in-depth scrutiny of important legislative issues before it. Analyze.

Demand of the Question: Introduction: Discuss briefly the role of parliament and on qualitative and quantitative performance. Body: Analyze our quantitative and qualitative performance using data regarding sittings, bills passed, etc., along with reasons and trends. Conclusion: provide some steps to improve parliamentary scrutiny of bills.
MODEL ANSWER: Parliament is considered as a temple for democracy. Parliament performs has two main responsibilities that are holding the executive accountable, and to legislate on crucial issues by debating, discussing and deliberating on them at length. However, in recent years though the quantitative performance in terms of the number of bills has only declined slightly the qualitative performance in terms of quality debates has drastically declined.
LONG HOURS AND PASSING BILLS In today’s modern world one of the main ingredients of good governance is proactive and speedy policymaking. Indian parliament in this regard has seen numerous ups and downs but as a whole, our quantitative performance has been satisfactory. 1. Our first Lok sabha of 1952 has set a record and precedent in terms of the number of bills passed. In its first session itself, it passed 27 bills in 64 days and passed an average of 72 Bills each year. 2. The recently concluded the 16th Lok Sabha, 133 Bills were passed, 15% higher than the previous Lok Sabha. But a marked decline from our first Lok sabha. 3. Coalition politics, end of Indian national Congress domination, live broadcast of parliamentary proceedings, etc., have resulted in numerous parliamentary disruptions which affected the productivity of our parliament in recent times. 4. According to the PRS legislature, the 16th Lok Sabha worked for a total number of 1,615 hours, which is 40% lower than the average of all full-term Lok Sabhas. This Lok Sabha lost 16% of its scheduled time to disruptions while Rajya Sabha lost 36% of its scheduled time. 5. But historically it has been observed that whenever a party has a majority in the Lok Sabha, its quantitative performance increases. For example, though 16th Lok Sabha’s performance is less than average it is 20% more than the 15th Lok Sabha. 6. The 17th Lok Sabha has set a new record in terms of productivity and number of sitting. The first session of this Lok Sabha set a record by passing 33 bills which is the highest number passed in a single session since 1952 and also worked at 135% efficiency.
QUALITY OF PARLIAMENTARY PROCEEDINGS The qualitative performance of our parliament has suffered a huge blow in recent years as can be seen in the number of bills sent to committees and time spent on legislative business. 1. Compared to the first Lok Sabha, later ones have spent less proportion of time on legislative business. For example, 16th Lok Sabha has spent just 32% of its time on legislative business. 2. The first session of the 17th Lok sabha is a good example of a declining trend of scrutiny in our bills. Out of the 28 bills which were passed by Parliament, only five of them were previously examined by a parliamentary committee.

3. In the 16th Lok Sabha, 25% of the Bills introduced were referred to Committees, much lower than 71% and 60% in the 15th and 14th Lok Sabha respectively. 4. Question hour is another means available to members to hold government accountable but due to repeated disruptions, the time allocated for questions away is not being utilized effectively. The question hour in the last four Lok Sabhas, on average, functioned for 59% of their scheduled time and in the Rajya Sabha 41% of its scheduled time during the last two Parliaments. 5. Lack of effective opposition, brute majority of the government and frequent disruptions, apart from declining value for quality debate and healthy parliamentary culture are the main reasons for this worrying trend. 6. Scrutiny not only includes debate before passing of bills but also post legislative scrutiny which is not given much importance. For example, earlier this month, the Delhi High Court made scathing remarks about the functioning of the law that prohibits the practice of manual cleaning of latrines and sewers. 7. Though passed in 1993 we still have 53000 people engaged in this inhumane act. Clearly there is a disconnect between legislating and implementation of law.
   WAY FORWARD ● One way to address this issue is to follow the healthy practice of sending all bills to committees before taking up for debate in the house like in the UK. ● The role of parliament does not end by merely passing the law but also to have post legislative scrutiny. The role departmental standing committee in this regard is crucial. ● Public hearings, summoning officials implementing the law like in the USA is a healthy that is worthy of emulation.
   The role of parliament is not just to pass laws but also to make sure hasty legislation that is passed without scrutiny will not defeat the purpose of the law.