Ram Mandir Trust RTI Controversy: Governance and Transparency in Religious Institutions

Hindustan Times - India · 6 Jul 2026 · 2 min read
Prelims · Polity Mains · GS2 Governance High relevance

CPI(M) MP John Brittas challenges the Central Information Commission's ruling that the Shri Ram Janmbhoomi Teerth Kshetra Trust is not a 'public authority' under RTI Act, highlighting governance concerns in religious institutions with significant government involvement.

Key points

Central Information Commission (CIC) ruled on June 6, 2025, that the Ram Mandir Trust is not a 'public authority' under Section 2(h) of the RTI Act, based largely on submissions by the Home Ministry.

Shri Ram Janmbhoomi Teerth Kshetra Trust was constituted through a government-approved scheme under the Acquisition of Certain Area at Ayodhya Act, 1993, following the Supreme Court's 2019 Ayodhya verdict.

CPI(M) MP John Brittas argues that the Trust's formation via government notification and its composition (12 of 15 members nominated by GoI) makes it a public authority, citing Supreme Court precedents like DAV College Trust case (2019).

[GS2-Governance] The controversy connects to broader questions about transparency in religious institutions managing public funds, especially after allegations of donation theft at the Ayodhya temple.

Legal argument centers on Section 2(h)(d) of RTI Act - whether a body 'established or constituted by notification' qualifies as public authority, with MHA claiming the notification was merely implementing SC directions.

Government presence in Trust's governance includes serving bureaucrats - an MHA Additional Secretary, UP's IAS nominee, and Ayodhya DM, raising accountability questions.

Judicial precedents cited include Thalappalam Service Cooperative Bank case (2013) and Delhi HC's July 2026 NSE judgment, emphasizing purposive interpretation of RTI for transparency.

Comparative analysis with Shri Mata Vaishno Devi Shrine Board shows religious autonomy can coexist with RTI compliance, a model suggested for Ayodhya Trust.

Political dimensions include Congress demanding SC-monitored probe and RSS calling for accountability reforms, making this a multiparty governance issue.

Way Forward: The Trust should adopt RTI compliance for financial transparency, establish independent audit mechanisms, and clarify government's role through revised MHA notification to balance religious autonomy with public accountability.

Key terms

Right to Information Act, 2005

The RTI Act empowers citizens to access information from public authorities to promote transparency. Section 2(h) defines 'public authority' to include bodies established by Constitution, law, government notification, or substantially financed by government. Its constitutional significance lies in realizing Article 19(1)(a) rights and checking misuse of power.

Central Information Commission

Statutory body under RTI Act that adjudicates appeals and ensures compliance. Headed by Chief Information Commissioner, it plays crucial role in interpreting scope of 'public authority' and balancing transparency with operational efficiency of institutions.

Acquisition of Certain Area at Ayodhya Act, 1993

Parliamentary law that acquired 67.7 acres in Ayodhya for Ram temple construction. Section 6 allowed central government to set up Trust via notification, making this a rare case of statutory backing for religious institution formation.

Public Authority under RTI

Defined under Section 2(h) as bodies established by Constitution/Parliament/State Legislature, or by government notification. Key tests include government control, funding, and public function. Judicial interpretations (e.g., Thalappalam case) have expanded its scope to include entities performing public duties.