Bring Ram Janmabhoomi Trust within RTI purview: CPI(M) leader John Brittas

The Ram Janmabhoomi Teerth Kshetra Trust cannot be kept beyond the purview of the RTI Act just because the government chooses to describe it as “autonomous”, when it has been constituted through a government-approved scheme, vested with land acquired under a parliamentary law, and has serving IAS officers nominated as government representatives in its governing framework, CPI(M)’s Rajya Sabha leader John Brittas said on Sunday (July 5, 2026).

In a letter to Home Minister Amit Shah, he urged the government to revisit this stance. “Trusts that enjoy unparalleled public faith must also uphold the highest standards of public transparency and accountability,” Mr. Brittas wrote on X, sharing a copy of his letter.

Referring to a June 6, 2025 order of the Central Information Commission (CIC), which held that the trust was not a “public authority” under Section 2(h) of the RTI Act, Mr. Brittas said the CIC’s decision had relied substantially on the stand taken by the Ministry of Home Affairs and requested the Ministry to review its position.

Mr. Brittas argued that the issue extended beyond a single RTI application and raised a broader question about whether a trust created through a government-approved scheme, pursuant to a Supreme Court judgment, and vested with property by the Central Government should remain outside the accountability framework envisaged under the RTI Act.

The CPI(M) leader said the trust’s origins were linked to governmental action following the Supreme Court’s November 9, 2019 judgment in the Ayodhya title dispute. He noted that the Centre had framed the scheme governing the trust under the Acquisition of Certain Area at Ayodhya Act, 1993, constituted the trust, and vested it with the acquired land through a gazette notification.

According to Mr. Brittas, the government also determined the trust’s initial composition and framework. He said that of the trust’s 15 members, 12 were initially nominated by the Central Government, while three were chosen during its first meeting.

Mr. Brittas questioned the interpretation accepted by the CIC that the trust could not be regarded as having been established or constituted by a government notification because the notification was issued in compliance with directions of the Supreme Court.

“Section 2(h)(d) simply refers to a body established or constituted by a Government notification or order; it does not distinguish between a notification issued pursuant to a judicial direction and one issued independently by the Government,” he said.

He further contended that while the CIC had concluded that the trust was neither owned, controlled, nor substantially financed by the government, those considerations should not override Section 2(h)(d), which independently covers bodies established or constituted through government notification or order.

Mr. Brittas highlighted the presence of serving government officials in the trust’s governance structure, including nominees of the Central and Uttar Pradesh governments and the Ayodhya District Magistrate. He noted that the Centre’s current representative on the trust was an Additional Secretary in the Ministry of Home Affairs.

“If the Trust is entirely private in character and wholly beyond the sphere of public accountability, why did the Government itself consider it necessary to provide for continuing governmental representation in its governing structure?” he asked.

The Rajya Sabha member also argued that the trust administers land acquired under a parliamentary law and receives donations from devotees across India and abroad, creating expectations of transparency in governance, financial administration, contracts, and utilisation of donations.

Drawing a comparison with institutions such as the Shri Mata Vaishno Devi Shrine Board, Mr. Brittas said religious autonomy and public accountability could coexist.

He urged the Home Ministry to undertake a comprehensive review of its position on the applicability of the RTI Act to the trust and to place a revised stand before the appropriate court so that the issue could receive an authoritative judicial determination.