Decide if Ram Temple trust is a public authority: HC to CIC
The trust was constituted by the Centre on February 5, 2020 following the Supreme Court’s November 2019 ruling in the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid title suit.
The Delhi high court has directed the central information commission (CIC) to decide whether Shri Ram Janmabhoomi Teerth Kshetra trust, set up for the construction and management of the Ram temple in Ayodhya, is a “public authority” and thus accountable to provide information to citizens under the Right to Information (RTI) Act.

The trust was constituted by the Centre on February 5, 2020 following the Supreme Court’s November 2019 ruling in the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid title suit, paving the way for the construction of a grand Ram temple in Ayodhya. The trust comprises 15 members, including K Parasaran, senior advocate practising in the Supreme Court, Jagatguru Shankaracharya Jyotishpeethadhishwar, Swami Vasudevanand Saraswatiji Maharaj, and is headed by Nripendra Mishra.
A bench of justice Sanjeev Narula passed the order while disposing of a petition filed by RTI applicant Neeraj Sharma, whose application under the RTI Act seeking the names of the central public information officers (CPIOs) and the first appellate authority appointed for the temple trust, was turned down by the Union home ministry on the grounds that the trust was an autonomous organisation and did not fall within the ambit of public authority.
Section 4 of the RTI Act mandates authorities falling within the definition of “public authority” to proactively disclose information pertaining to it, maintain its documents and records to facilitate applications under the legislation.
“After hearing Prashant Bhushan, counsel for the petitioner and Chetan Sharma, ASG for the respondents, it emerges that the question raised in the present case, whether the trust in question can be considered as a public authority or not, has not been adjudicated by the CIC. In these circumstances, in the opinion of this court, this question should be first deliberated before the CIC,” the court said in its order passed on December 20 last year.
To be sure, the high court disposed of the petition on December 20, stating it would pass a detailed order indicating its reasons. The detailed order was uploaded on the high court’s portal recently.
Sharma had filed an RTI application on January 19, 2021 with the public information officer (PIO) of the ministry of home affairs (MHA), seeking names of the CPIOs and the first appellate authority appointed for the Ram temple trust. Nine days later, the MHA informed him that the trust was an autonomous organisation or body constituted by the Centre in compliance with the directions of the apex court ruling in Ram Janmabhoomi case.
Not finding the response satisfactory, Sharma filed a first appeal, but the first appellate authority in March 2021 upheld the MHA’s response to Sharma on January 28 that year. He then filed a second appeal before CIC.
On July 8, 2022, the CIC asked the PIO to re-examine the application and provide a revised point wise response to Sharma, noting that its reply was untenable in law since it did not disclose provisions of the RTI Act for tacit denial.
However, the MHA released a communication on July 28, 2022, stating that the Ayodhya temple trust is neither owned, controlled nor financed by the Government of India and is an independent and autonomous organisation itself. It further said that the trust does not fall within the definition of public authority under the RTI Act and thus, the RTI applications could not be transferred to the trust.
Sharma again moved the CIC, but his complaint was returned. He then moved the high court challenging the July 2022 CIC order as well as MHA’s communication on the trust.
Advocate Prashant Bhushan, representing Sharma, argued in the court that the trust fell within the ambit of public authority as it was constituted as per the directions of the Supreme Court and later notified by the Centre. The petition added that the trust’s management violated the provision of
Section 5 of the RTI Act by failing to designate PIOs.