Private Schools Fall Outside RTI's Public Authority Definition, But Must Still Display Fee Structures: Madras HC

Justice M. Dhandapani quashes penalty and modifies the Information Commission's order, but independently directs all private schools to publish fee structures under Rule 17(3) of the Tamil Nadu Private Schools Rules.

The Madras High Court has ruled that private unaided educational institutions do not qualify as “public authorities” under Section 2(h) of the Right to Information Act, 2005, and therefore cannot be subjected to information-disclosure obligations through directions of the Tamil Nadu Information Commission. Justice M. Dhandapani, sitting singly, disposed of W.P. No. 21240 of 2026 on 8 July 2026, partly setting aside the Information Commission's order of 25 May 2026 and the Director of Private Schools' consequential circular of 1 June 2026. However, the court declined to give private schools a complete reprieve on fee disclosure. Exercising extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, Justice Dhandapani independently directed all private schools to display their fee structures on notice boards and websites under Rule 17(3) of the Tamil Nadu Private Schools (Regulation) Rules, 2023 — grounding the mandate in the regulatory framework of the Private Schools Act rather than the RTI Act.

The RTI Application and the Information Commission's Sweeping Directions

The chain of events began on 26 October 2022, when an RTI application under Section 6(1) of the RTI Act was filed before the Public Information Officer attached to the Chief Educational Officer, Coimbatore District, seeking particulars of fee structures permissible for private matriculation and higher secondary schools. Instead of responding, the PIO transferred the application under Section 6(3) to the District Education Officer (Private Schools), Coimbatore, which in turn transferred it to over a hundred private school principals across the district. No information was furnished within the statutory 30-day period.

A first appeal under Section 19(1) filed on 22 November 2022 went undisposed. Two second appeals under Section 19(3) were then filed before the Tamil Nadu Information Commission on 11 March 2023 and 9 October 2023 respectively. The Information Commission took up the matter and, on 25 May 2026, passed a wide-ranging order.

That order went well beyond the ambit of the original RTI application. The Commission awarded compensation of Rs. 25,000 against the public authority under Section 19(8)(b), issued show-cause notices under Section 20(1) to educational officials threatening penalties of Rs. 250 per day up to Rs. 25,000 per official, and, invoking Section 19(8)(a)(ii), appointed the Director of Private Schools as the Public Information Officer for the case. It then directed the Director to issue operational orders to all private school principals across Tamil Nadu, mandating display of fee structures at school entrances, on websites, and in admission forms. District Chief Educational Officers were directed to inspect compliance and submit district-wise reports by 15 June 2026.

The Director of Private Schools, treating this as binding, issued a circular dated 1 June 2026 directing all private schools to publish government-fixed fee structures by 5 June 2026 and requiring compliance reports by 10 June 2026.

The Petitioner's Challenge

The All India Private Educational Institutions Association, represented by its State General Secretary K. Palaniyappan, challenged both the Commission's order and the circular before the High Court through a petition under Article 226 seeking certiorarified mandamus. Its counsel, Mr. E. Vijay Anand, advanced several grounds.

The core submission was that private unaided schools are not “public authorities” as defined under Section 2(h) of the RTI Act and therefore the Information Commission had no jurisdiction over them. Counsel pointed to the Supreme Court's interpretation of Section 2(h) in Central Board of Secondary Education v. Aditya Bandhopadhyay (2011) 8 SCC 497 and DAV College Trust & Management Society v. Director of Public Instructions (2019) 9 SCC 185, to argue that the RTI Act applies only to public authorities as defined and that mere affiliation with a statutory board does not transform a private institution into a public authority.

It was further argued that the Information Commission, as a creature of statute under Section 15 of the RTI Act, has jurisdiction circumscribed within the four corners of that Act and any order passed against entities outside its jurisdiction is coram non judice and void ab initio, relying on Kiran Singh v. Chaman Paswan AIR 1954 SC 340.

On the scope of the directions, counsel submitted that the Commission's jurisdiction under Section 19(3) is limited to adjudicating the specific second appeal before it and directing provision of information to the specific applicant — not to passing sweeping state-wide directions amounting to subordinate legislation. Appointing the Director of Private Schools as PIO under Section 19(8)(a)(ii) was said to be a misuse of a provision meant as a remedial measure in individual cases where a public authority lacks a designated PIO, not a mechanism to bring in an entirely different statutory authority.

The petition also raised grounds of natural justice, Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 21, and informational privacy under the triple-test doctrine in K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India (2017) 10 SCC 1. It was argued that private schools were not parties to the RTI proceedings, were never heard, and the circular imposing an omnibus obligation on all categories of schools — private, aided, CBSE, ICSE, nursery, primary, higher secondary — without differentiation was manifestly arbitrary. Counsel also argued that a direction through an administrative circular unsupported by specific statutory authority does not constitute “law” within the meaning of Article 19(6), relying on Bijoe Emmanuel v. State of Kerala (1986) 3 SCC 615 and Modern School v. Union of India (2004) 5 SCC 583.

A separate argument concerned the Tamil Nadu Private Schools (Regulation) Act, 2018. Counsel submitted that the Private Schools Act has its own fee fixation mechanism through the Fee Fixation Committee and does not contain any provision empowering the Director of Private Schools to direct public disclosure of fee structures through notice boards, websites and admission forms as a standing general obligation. Many member schools had already appealed against fee orders, and compelling display of fees under appeal would dilute statutory appellate rights.

The State's Defence and the Commission's Submissions

The Additional Advocate General, Mr. T. Gowthaman, appearing for the State and the Director of Private Schools, raised a preliminary objection: the petitioner association had not disclosed the particulars of its affected members and could not claim legal injury without doing so, depriving it of locus standi. On merits, the State argued that the fee structure fixed by the Tamil Nadu Private Schools Fee Determination Committee was already published on the committee's official website and therefore in the public domain. The circular added no new obligation — it merely required schools to display what was already public. Accordingly, the petition was said to be virtually infructuous.

The State also relied on Rule 17(3) of the Tamil Nadu Private Schools (Regulation) Rules, 2023, which mandates every private school to display fee details on notice boards or websites one month before every academic year. Since that obligation already existed, the challenge to the circular for creating new obligations was said to be misconceived. The Director of Private Schools, it was argued, was acting within administrative and supervisory powers to ensure compliance with directions of a statutory authority.

Standing counsel for the Information Commission added that the original RTI complainant had not been made a necessary party, rendering the petition liable to dismissal for non-joinder, and that no authorisation had been filed showing the association had been mandated by all private schools. The Commission maintained that its direction under Section 19(8)(a)(ii) was directed only to a Government servant — the Director of Private Schools — who is a public authority under Section 2(h)(c) of the RTI Act, and that no direction had been issued directly against any private school.

The Court's Analysis: Issue 1 — Are Private Schools “Public Authorities”?

Justice Dhandapani framed three issues for decision. On the first — whether private educational institutions fall within the definition of “public authority” under Section 2(h) of the RTI Act — the court undertook a detailed examination of the statutory text and the Supreme Court's pronouncements.

Tracing the definition through Thalappalam Ser. Co-op. Bank Ltd. v. State of Kerala (2013) 16 SCC 82 and DAV College Trust (2019) 9 SCC 185, the court noted that Section 2(h) uses both “means” and “includes”, making the definition exhaustive within its enumerated categories. The first part of Section 2(h) covers authorities established or constituted by or under the Constitution, by Parliament, by a State Legislature, or by notification of the appropriate Government. The inclusive second part adds bodies owned, controlled, or substantially financed by the appropriate Government, and non-governmental organisations substantially financed by the appropriate Government.

The Supreme Court in Thalappalam had held that mere supervision or regulation of a body by statute would not make it a public authority — the control must be substantial control over the management and affairs of the body, not merely supervisory or regulatory. Applying this to the facts, Justice Dhandapani found that private educational institutions are not established or constituted under the Constitution, by Parliament or the State Legislature, or by Government notification. They are neither directly nor indirectly financed by the Government, and no control beyond supervisory or regulatory is wielded over them.

The court therefore held that private educational institutions do not fall within the ambit of “public authority” as defined under Section 2(h) of the RTI Act and are not amenable to information-disclosure obligations flowing from the Commission's or the Director's orders under the RTI framework.

Issues 2 and 3: The Commission's Order and the Director's Circular

On the second and third issues, the court examined whether the Information Commission's directions could survive and whether the Director's circular could be sustained.

The court accepted that the Commission's appointment of the Director of Private Schools as State Public Information Officer under Section 19(8)(a)(ii) was a power that could properly be exercised where a public authority had not designated a PIO or where the designated PIO had failed to discharge duties. To that limited extent, the order was not faulted. However, the wide-ranging directions — requiring state-wide display of fee structures at school entrances, websites and in admission forms, and directing district-wise compliance inspections — were held to be beyond jurisdiction. Section 4(1)(b), which mandates publication of information, applies only to public authorities as defined, and the obligation cannot be extended to private educational institutions through an administrative direction. The court held these sweeping directions were beyond what the RTI Act permits.

The court then turned to the Director's circular. Even setting aside the Commission's order, the court examined whether the Director had independent authority to issue such a circular. It found that Rule 17(3) of the Tamil Nadu Private Schools (Regulation) Rules, 2023 — framed under Section 57 of the Private Schools Act — already mandates every private school to display on its notice board or host on its website the fees fixed and other facilities, updated one month before every academic year. The fee fixation mechanism under the Private Schools Act and Act 22 of 2009 (Tamil Nadu Schools (Regulation of Collection of Fee) Act, 2009) places fees squarely within the knowledge of the competent authority, and those fees are already hosted on the Fee Determination Committee's website.

Justice Dhandapani held that, independently of the Commission's order, the Director of Private Schools draws power from Rule 17(3) to mandate fee structure display. The circular was therefore not impermissible as a matter of regulatory authority even though it had been issued in implementation of an order that was itself beyond jurisdiction. The private schools, being bound by the Rules, cannot abdicate the obligation that Rule 17(3) places on them by arguing they are not public authorities under the RTI Act.

The court also addressed the penalty and compensation directions. Section 20 of the RTI Act authorises penalty on a State Public Information Officer where, without reasonable cause, the officer has refused an application, failed to furnish information within time, given incorrect or misleading information, or obstructed furnishing of information. The court found that the fee structure details were not in the possession of the Director or other education officials — they were with the private schools. In the absence of compliance by schools with Rule 17(3), the officials could not have provided the information. Penalising officials for non-provision of information they did not hold was held to be arbitrary and unjust. The court also noted that the Commission had not stated explicitly how the infraction attracting penalty was established.

The Court's Own Direction Under Article 226

Rather than simply quashing the relevant portions and leaving the matter at that, Justice Dhandapani exercised the court's extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 and issued an independent direction to private schools to display fee structures. The court observed that Rule 17(3) serves a benevolent purpose: it enables parents to make informed decisions about school admissions without being caught unaware by fee demands that strain household finances. The regulatory mandate, the court held, must be complied with in letter and spirit.

Accordingly, the court directed that private schools must display the fee structure fixed by the Fee Determination Committee and all other fees approved by the competent authority under Section 32 of the Private Schools Act on their notice boards and websites, updated one month before the commencement of every academic year.

Outcome

The writ petition was disposed of on 8 July 2026 in the following terms:

The portion of the Information Commission's order dated 25 May 2026 imposing penalty on officials of the Director of Private Schools and ordering compensation to the complainant was set aside.

The direction in the Commission's order requiring the Director to ensure display of fee structures at school entrances and to report compliance was modified. In its place, the court invoked Article 226 to independently direct the Director of Private Schools to ensure fee structure display on notice boards and websites of all private schools by invoking regulatory power under Rule 17(3) of the Tamil Nadu Private Schools (Regulation) Rules, 2023.

All private schools recognised under the Private Schools Act are directed to display the fee fixed by the Fee Determination Committee and other fees approved under Section 32 of the Private Schools Act on their notice boards and websites, updated one month before the commencement of every academic year.

Connected miscellaneous petitions were closed. No order as to costs.