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 reports
The HinduIndependentLeftFactual 88Objective 805 hr. agoCPI(M) leader John Brittas argues that the Ram Janmabhoomi Trust should be brought under the RTI Act's purview, challenging the Central Information Commission's (CIC) ruling that the trust is not a 'public authority' under Section 2(h). In a letter to Home Minister Amit Shah, Brittas contends that the trust was established through a government-approved scheme, vested with land via parliamentary law, and includes IAS officers as government representatives. He references a 2025 CIC order that relied on the Ministry of Home Affairs' stance and urges a reevaluation. Brittas emphasizes that the trust's constitution followed a Supreme Court judgment and was governed by a parliamentary act, questioning why it should be exempt from transparency requirements. He highlights the involvement of government officials in the trust's governance and challenges the CIC's interpretation of Section 2(h)(d), arguing that judicially directed notifications should not disqualify a body from being considered a public authority.
Bias read (Left): The article frames the debate around the inclusion of the Ram Janmabhoomi Trust under the RTI Act as a matter of public accountability and transparency, aligning with left-leaning concerns over government oversight and democratic scrutiny. The emphasis on the trust's government-established nature, I
Why these scores (Factual 88 · Objective 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 TimesIndependentLeftFactual 85Objective 755 hr. agoCPI(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.
Bias read (Left): 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
Why these scores (Factual 85 · Objective 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
★
Keep the news honest.
ObjectiveNews is reader-funded and ad-free — we show you the bias instead of hiding it. Support independent journalism for €5/month.
Become a Supporter
India
