Karnataka High Court Declares Century Club a ‘Public Authority’ Under RTI Act, Citing Historic Land Grant Worth Hundreds of Crores
BENGALURU: In a landmark judgment, the Karnataka High Court has ruled that Century Club, a prestigious Bengaluru-based institution, qualifies as a “public authority” under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005. The court upheld an earlier order passed by the Karnataka Information Commission (KIC) and directed the club to comply with RTI queries, setting a significant precedent on the interpretation of “substantial financing” under the Act.
The ruling came in response to a writ petition filed by Century Club challenging the KIC’s 2018 directive to disclose a list of documents maintained by the club. The KIC had acted on a complaint by S. Umapathy, who had sought certified copies under the RTI Act but was denied access on the grounds that the club was not a public authority.
Advocate S. Umapathy, arguing as party-in-person, contended that the club had received 7.5 acres of prime land in Bengaluru from the Maharaja of Mysore in 1913. He argued that this historic land grant constituted substantial state financing, bringing the club within the ambit of the RTI Act.
Justice Suraj Govindaraj, presiding over the case, noted that the current market value of the land in question would run into “hundreds if not thousands of crores,” far surpassing any funding from club members. The court concluded that the land grant amounted to significant public support.
“The grant of land on which the petitioner club is situated would amount to a substantial contribution of financing by the State, made by the then Maharaja of Mysore, making the RTI Act applicable to the petitioner club,” the order stated.
ಇದನ್ನೂ ಓದಿ: Century Club: ಆರ್ಟಿಐ ಕಾಯ್ದೆ ವ್ಯಾಪ್ತಿಗೆ ಸೆಂಚುರಿ ಕ್ಲಬ್: ಐತಿಹಾಸಿಕ ಭೂದಾನ ಆಧಾರದ ಮೇಲೆ ಕರ್ನಾಟಕ ಹೈಕೋರ್ಟ್ ತೀರ್ಪು
Dismissing the club’s petition, the High Court found no fault in the KIC’s earlier ruling and ordered compliance with the RTI request. The verdict not only upholds transparency but also clarifies that historic land allocations by princely states can qualify as public financing under modern transparency laws.
About the Author
