Brittas urges Centre to review stand on excluding Ram Temple Trust from RTI

CPI(M) Rajya Sabha MP John Brittas has urged the Centre to reconsider its stand that the Shri Ram Janmabhoomi Teerth Kshetra Trust is not a public authority under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, arguing that such a move would strengthen transparency and public accountability.

In a letter to Union Home Minister Amit Shah dated 4 July, Brittas said the Trust's origins were unique, noting that following the Supreme Court's November 2019 Ayodhya judgment, the Centre framed the scheme governing the Trust, constituted it through a gazette notification and vested the acquired land in it. He also pointed out that 12 of the Trust's 15 members were initially nominated by the government.

Referring to a 6 June 2025 order of the Central Information Commission (CIC), which held that the Trust is not a "public authority" under the RTI Act, Brittas said the Commission had relied substantially on the Home Ministry's stand. He urged the ministry to review its position in the interest of transparency and public accountability.

Brittas argued that the Centre's contention that the Trust was not "established or constituted" by a government notification merely because the notification was issued pursuant to a Supreme Court direction required reconsideration.

He said Section 2(h)(d) of the RTI Act makes no distinction between a notification issued independently by the government and one issued in compliance with a judicial direction.

Citing Supreme Court judgments in D.A.V. College Trust and Management Society v. Director of Public Instructions (2019) and Thalappalam Service Cooperative Bank Ltd. v. State of Kerala (2013), as well as the Delhi High Court's 1 July judgment declaring the National Stock Exchange a public authority under the RTI Act, Brittas argued that institutions deriving their legal existence and public character from governmental action should receive a purposive interpretation that advances transparency.

He also said the Trust's governing framework includes continuing institutional representation from the Centre and the Uttar Pradesh government through serving IAS officers, reflecting the government's ongoing association with its administration.

"While these representatives may not enjoy voting rights, their statutory inclusion in the governing framework reflects the public character of the institution and the Government's continuing institutional association with its administration," he said.

According to Brittas, this governmental presence cannot be ignored while determining whether the Trust should be subject to transparency standards under the RTI Act.

He further argued that the Trust's public character also stems from the nature of its functions, as it administers one of the country's most revered religious institutions, manages land acquired under a parliamentary law and vested through a government notification, and receives donations from millions of devotees in India and abroad.

Brittas said the "extraordinary confidence" reposed in the Trust by the public carried with it an equally compelling expectation of transparency.

Drawing a comparison with the Shri Mata Vaishno Devi Shrine Board, he said institutional autonomy and public accountability were not mutually exclusive, adding that major religious institutions established under statutory or governmental frameworks continue to function with administrative and financial transparency while retaining autonomy in religious matters.

He urged the Home Ministry to reconsider its stand and place a revised position before the jurisdictional High Court so that the Trust's status under the RTI Act could receive an authoritative judicial determination.

The Shri Ram Janmabhoomi Teerth Kshetra Trust is currently at the centre of a controversy over allegations of embezzlement of donations offered by devotees.