COLLEGE TRUST AND MANAGEMENT SOCIETY & ORS. versus DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS & ORS.

Citation: [2019] 12 S.C.R. 549 · Decided: 17-09-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DEEPAK GUPTA · Disposal: Disposed off

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 5 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
549
D.A.V. COLLEGE TRUST AND MANAGEMENT
SOCIETY & ORS.
v.
DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 9828 of 2013)
SEPTEMBER 17, 2019
[DEEPAK GUPTA AND ANIRUDDHA BOSE, JJ]
Right to Information Act, 2005:
s. 2(h) – Public Authority – Non-governmental organizations
(NGO) substantially financed by the appropriate government, if a
public authority u/s. 2(h) – Held: NGO substantially financed,
directly or indirectly, by funds provided by the appropriate
government would be a public authority amenable to the provisions
of the Act – Appellant-society running various colleges/schools,
which are substantially financed, are public authority within the
meaning of s. 2(h) of the Act.
s. 2(h) – Definition of public authority – Explained.
s. 2(h) – Non-governmental organization – Meaning of –
Held: Term NGO is described as an international body which is
legally constituted but non-governmental in nature – It is created
by natural or legal entities with no participation or representation
by the Government – Even NGOs which are funded totally or
partially by the Governments essentially maintain the NGO status
by excluding Government representations in all their organisations
– In some jurisprudence, they are also referred to as civil society
organisations – Society which may not be owned or controlled by
the Government, may be an NGO but if it is substantially financed
directly or indirectly by the government it would fall within the ambit
of sub-clause (ii) of s. 2(h) of the Act.
Interpretation of statutes:
Statutory rule of interpretation – Explanation of – Held: When
in the definition clause a meaning is given to certain words then
that meaning alone will have to be given to those words – However,
when the definition clause contains the words ‘means and includes’
   [2019] 12 S.C.R. 549
549
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
550
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 12 S.C.R.
then both these words must be given the emphasis required and one
word cannot override the other – Thus, the word ‘means’ indicates
that the definition is exhaustive and complete – Word ‘includes’
enlarges the scope of the expression.
Purposive construction of a statute – Principle of – Held:
While giving a purposive interpretation, a court is required to place
itself in the chair of the Legislature or author of the statute – Provision
should be construed in such a manner to ensure that the object of
the Act is fulfilled – If the language of the Act is clear then the
language has to be followed, and the court cannot give its own
interpretation – However, if the language admits of two meanings
then the court can refer to the Objects and Reasons, to find out the
true meaning.
Disposing of the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1.1 It is a well settled statutory rule of interpretation
that when in the definition clause a meaning is given to certain
words then that meaning alone will have to be given to those
words. However, when the definition clause contains the words
‘means and includes’ then both these words must be given the
emphasis required and one word cannot override the other. It is
thus, clear that the word ‘means’ indicates that the definition is
exhaustive and complete. It is a hard and fast definition and no
other meaning can be given to it. On the other hand, the word
‘includes’ enlarges the scope of the expression. The word
‘includes’ is used to signify that beyond the meaning given in the
definition clause, other matters may be included keeping in view
the nature of the language and object of the provision. In the
instant case, the word ‘means’ has been used in the first part of
sub-section (h) of Section 2 whereas the word ‘includes’ has been
used in the second part of the said Section. They have not been
used together. [Para 8, 10] [558-G-H; 559-G; 560-A-B]
1.2 The first part of Section 2(h) relates to authorities,
bodies or institutions of self-government established or
constituted (a) under the Constitution; (b) by any law of
Parliament; (c) by any law of State Legislature or (d) by notification
made by the appropriate Government. There is no dispute with
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
551
regard to clauses (a) to (c). As far as clause (d) is concerned, the
submission that unless a notification is issued notifying that an
authority, body or institution of self-government is brought within
the ambit of the Act, the said Act would not apply, cannot be
accepted. The notification contemplated in clause (d) is a
notification relating to the establishment or constitutio

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.