Case at a Glance
A member of a Kerala service co-operative bank used the RTI Act to ask the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies for two documents: the bank’s construction agreement with a labour co-operative society and the minutes of its last general body meeting. The bank argued it was not a ‘public authority’ and that the Registrar could access its records only after deciding to hold an inquiry. The Supreme Court disagreed, holding that information which a public authority ‘can access’ under a statute falls within Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, and directed the Registrar to call for and supply the documents within two weeks.
The fourth respondent, who appeared in person, is a member of the appellant, The Muppathadam Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd. He applied under the Right to Information Act, 2005 to the Joint Registrar (General) of Co-operative Societies for (i) the construction agreement between the bank and a labour co-operative society entrusted with a building construction, and (ii) the minutes of the bank’s last general body meeting.
In the first round, the rejection of his request was upheld up to the State Information Commissioner and by a Single Judge of the Kerala High Court, but the Division Bench directed reconsideration. In the second round, the State Information Commissioner, the Single Judge and the Division Bench all affirmed his right to the documents. The bank challenged that Division Bench judgment before the Supreme Court.
The Key Question Before the Court
Can a co-operative society that is not itself a ‘public authority’ resist disclosure of its records under the RTI Act when the Registrar has statutory power to access them, and do Sections 8(1)(d) or 8(1)(j) bar disclosure to a member?
‘Can be accessed’ means statutory access, not a pending inquiry
The bank relied on Thalappalam Service Co-operative Bank Limited v. State of Kerala, (2013) 16 SCC 82, and argued that the Registrar’s access under Sections 65 and 66 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969 required a prior satisfaction to start an inquiry. Justice K. Vinod Chandran, writing for the Bench, read Section 2(f) of the RTI Act — which covers information “relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority” — with Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court of India v. Subhash Chandra Agarwal, (2019) 11 SC CK 0032, (2020) 5 SCC 481. The Court held that “the words ‘can be accessed by a public authority’ refers to access being statutorily provided,” and that such power “cannot be fettered at all.”
On Section 65, the Court said “the prior satisfaction required is only to initiate an inquiry”; satisfaction must itself be formed on documents, so “Access simpliciter, thus cannot be conditioned with a prior satisfaction.” Section 66 separately “confers supervisory powers and powers of inspection on the Registrar.” On the exemptions, a construction contract and general body minutes involve no trade secret or harm to competitive position under Section 8(1)(d), and are not personal information under Section 8(1)(j). The Court held that “a Member of the Society cannot be denied such information on the ground that it is personal to the Society,” while noting that a request by an unconnected third party may stand on a different footing. Central Board of Secondary Education v. Aditya Bandopadhyay, (2011) 08 SC CK 0084, (2011) 8 SCC 497 was also referred to.
What the Court Actually Held
- Information about a private body that a public authority can access under a statute is ‘information’ under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act; the Registrar need not already hold the documents.
- The Registrar’s access under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act is not conditioned on a prior satisfaction to initiate an inquiry; that satisfaction is needed only to start an inquiry.
- A construction agreement and general body meeting minutes are not exempt under Section 8(1)(d) or 8(1)(j), and a member cannot be refused them as information ‘personal’ to the society.
- The appeals were dismissed and the Joint Registrar was directed to call for the two documents immediately, and in any event within two weeks, and supply them to the member.
Why This Judgment Matters
- It gives members of co-operative societies and banks a practical RTI route to their society’s records through the Registrar.
- It clarifies how Thalappalam, (2013) 10 SC CK 0028 operates after Subhash Chandra Agarwal: a society may not be a public authority, yet its records can still be reached.
- It narrows the use of Section 8(1)(d) and 8(1)(j) exemptions to resist disclosure of routine society documents.
What Should Advocates Take Away From the Judgment?
For Co-operative Members
- File the RTI application with the Registrar / Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies, who can access society records under the State Act.
- Routine documents such as contracts and general body minutes cannot be withheld as ‘personal’ to the society.
For Counsel and PIOs
- Section 2(f) turns on statutory power of access, not physical custody or a pending inquiry.
- Exemption claims under Sections 8(1)(d) and (j) must show actual commercial harm or genuinely personal information.
- Note the Court’s caveat: requests by third parties unconnected with the society may be treated differently.
Key Takeaways
- Co-operative society records reachable by the Registrar under statute are covered by the RTI Act through Section 2(f).
- Prior satisfaction under Section 65 is needed only to start an inquiry, not to access documents.
- Members can obtain contracts and meeting minutes; these are not trade secrets or personal information.
- The Registrar must call for and supply the documents within two weeks.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is a co-operative bank a public authority under the RTI Act?
The bank argued it was not, relying on Thalappalam. The Court did not need to treat it as one: it held that its records are still ‘information’ under Section 2(f) because the Registrar, a public authority, can access them under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act.
Must the Registrar first start an inquiry before accessing society records?
No. The Court held the prior satisfaction under Section 65 is required only to initiate an inquiry; access itself cannot be conditioned on such satisfaction, and Section 66 separately gives inspection powers.
Can a society refuse documents to a member as personal information?
No. The Court held a member cannot be denied such information on the ground that it is personal to the society, though it noted the position may differ for an unconnected third party.
Conclusion
By reading ‘can be accessed’ as a reference to statutory access, the Supreme Court has made the RTI Act a meaningful tool for members who want to see how their co-operative society is being run. The ruling stops societies from using the Registrar’s inquiry procedure, or broad exemption claims, as a shield against routine disclosure.
Practical takeaway: Members seeking society records should direct RTI applications to the Registrar’s office and cite Section 2(f) and this ruling if refused.
Read the full judgment on CourtKutchehry: View judgment →
For more judgments, legal opinions and case analysis, visit courtkutchehry.com