A prominent leader of the Communist Party of India (Marxist), John Brittas, has called for the inclusion of the Ram Janmabhoomi Teerth Kshetra Trust within the scope of the Right to Information (RTI) Act, challenging the government's assertion that the trust operates outside the purview of public accountability. This move follows a recent ruling by the Central Information Commission (CIC) on June 6, 2025, which classified the trust as not falling under the definition of "public authority" under Section 2(h) of the RTI Act. In response, Brittas submitted a detailed letter to Union Home Minister Amit Shah, urging a reconsideration of the government's stance.
Brittas emphasized that the trust, despite being labeled as autonomous, was established through a government-approved scheme under the Acquisition of Certain Area at Ayodhya Act, 1993. This act was enacted in accordance with the Supreme Court's landmark judgment dated November 9, 2019, which resolved the long-standing Ayodhya title dispute. According to Brittas, the trust was constituted via a gazette notification, which vested it with the land acquired under the aforementioned legislation. Furthermore, the initial composition of the trust included 12 members nominated directly by the central government, with the remaining three selected during its inaugural meeting.
The CPI(M) leader contested the CIC's interpretation that the trust could not be considered as established by a government notification due to the notification being issued in compliance with the Supreme Court's directions rather than independently by the government. He argued that the source of the obligation to issue the notification does not affect the legal nature of the notification itself. Brittas referenced several judicial precedents, including the Supreme Court's decisions in DAV College Trust and Management Society vs Director of Public Instructions, 2019, and Thalappalam Service Cooperative Bank Ltd vs State of Kerala, 2013, to support his claim that the different provisions of Section 2(h) function independently.
Additionally, Brittas highlighted the continued involvement of government officials in the trust's governance structure. Notably, the current representative of the central government on the trust is an Additional Secretary in the Ministry of Home Affairs. Similarly, the Uttar Pradesh government's nominee is a serving IAS officer, along with the district magistrate of Ayodhya. Another ex-officio member of the trust was previously the senior-most officer in the Prime Minister’s Office. These appointments underscore the government's ongoing role in overseeing the trust's operations.
Brittas drew comparisons with other religious institutions, such as the Shri Mata Vaishno Devi Shrine Board, suggesting that religious autonomy and public accountability can coexist. He stressed that the trust manages land acquired under a parliamentary law and receives substantial donations from devotees across India and abroad, thereby generating expectations of transparency in its governance, financial management, and use of donations.
His arguments come amid growing concerns regarding the trust's functioning, particularly after allegations emerged of theft involving significant amounts of gold and silver donations at the Ayodhya temple. While the Congress party has called for a Supreme Court-monitored investigation and the potential dissolution of the trust, the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh has advocated for accountability and reforms without providing specific measures. Brittas' letter underscores the need for a comprehensive review of the government's position on the trust's status under the RTI Act, emphasizing that transparency should not be compromised merely because the trust is described as autonomous.
2 Berichte
The HinduUnabhängigLinksFaktentreue 88Objektivität 80vor 4 Std.CPI (M) -Führer John Brittas argumentiert, dass der Ram Janmabhoomi Trust unter den Anwendungsbereich des RTI-Gesetzes gebracht werden sollte und die Entscheidung der Zentralen Informationskommission (CIC) in Frage stellt, dass der Trust keine "öffentliche Behörde" nach Abschnitt 2 (h) ist. In einem Brief an Innenminister Amit Shah behauptet Brittas, dass der Trust durch ein von der Regierung genehmigtes Schema gegründet wurde, das über ein parlamentarisches Gesetz mit Land ausgestattet ist und IAS-Offiziere als Regierungsvertreter umfasst. Er verweist auf eine CIC-Anordnung von 2025, die sich auf die Haltung des Innenministeriums stützte, und fordert eine Neubewertung. Brittas betont, dass die Verfassung des Trusts einem Urteil des Obersten Gerichts folgte und durch einen parlamentarischen Akt geregelt wurde und fragt, warum er von den Transparenzanforderungen ausgenommen werden sollte. Er hebt die Beteiligung von Regierungsbeamten an den Herausforderungen des Vertrauens und die Interpretation von 2 (h) (d) durch die CIC hervor und argumentiert, dass gerichtliche Benachrichtigungen nicht als öffentliche Behörde betrachtet werden sollten.
Tendenz-Einschätzung (Links): Der Artikel formuliert die Debatte um die Aufnahme des Ram Janmabhoomi Trusts unter das RTI-Gesetz als eine Angelegenheit der öffentlichen Rechenschaftspflicht und der Transparenz, die mit den linksgerichteten Bedenken über die staatliche Aufsicht und die demokratische Kontrolle übereinstimmt.
Warum diese Bewertungen (Faktentreue 88 · Objektivität 80): Factuality is strong with accurate reporting of Brittas' demands and reference to the CIC ruling. The article maintains a clear and balanced tone, presenting both the legal arguments and the political context without overt bias. Objectivity is high as it presents multiple perspectives and avoids emo
Hindustan TimesUnabhängigLinksFaktentreue 85Objektivität 75vor 4 Std.CPI(M) Member of Parliament John Brittas emphasized that the Indian government's involvement in the Shri Ram Janmbhoomi Teerth Kshetra Trust cannot be overlooked, criticizing the government's stance that the Trust is not covered under the Right to Information (RTI) Act. He wrote to Home Minister Amit Shah requesting a review of this position, arguing that transparency should not be compromised simply because the Trust is labeled 'autonomous.' The Central Information Commission previously ruled that the Trust is not a 'public authority' under the RTI Act, basing its decision largely on submissions from the home affairs ministry. The Trust was established via a government-approved scheme following the Supreme Court's 2019 ruling on the Ayodhya dispute, with the government holding significant influence over its composition. Brittas highlighted that the Trust's legal existence is closely tied to government actions under statutory authority.
Tendenz-Einschätzung (Links): The article presents the perspective of CPI(M), a leftist political party, emphasizing their critique of the government's handling of the Trust's autonomy and transparency. The framing highlights concerns about government oversight and the interpretation of legal frameworks, which aligns with a left
Warum diese Bewertungen (Faktentreue 85 · Objektivität 75): Factuality is high as the article accurately reports Brittas' statements and references the CIC ruling from June 2025. It provides context about the Trust's constitution and recent allegations. Objectivity is somewhat lower due to the article's focus on Brittas' criticism and the political implicati
★
Halte die Nachrichten ehrlich.
ObjectiveNews ist leserfinanziert und werbefrei – wir zeigen dir den Bias, statt ihn zu verstecken. Unterstütze unabhängigen Journalismus für 5 €/Monat.
Unterstützer werden
India
