The Supreme Court has affirmed that a Registrar of Co-operative Societies possesses unfettered statutory authority to access documents of a cooperative society for the purpose of furnishing information under the Right to Information Act, 2005, and that such access is not contingent upon a prior subjective satisfaction to initiate an inquiry. The Court dismissed appeals by a cooperative bank challenging directions to disclose a construction agreement and General Body Meeting minutes to a member, holding that the definition of "information" under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act encompasses material relating to a private body which a public authority can access under any other law.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The Muppathadam Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd. (appellant) resisted an RTI application filed by its member (4th respondent) seeking two documents: a copy of the construction agreement between the Bank and a Labour Co-operative Society entrusted with building construction, and a copy of the minutes of the last General Body Meeting of the Bank. The member's first application was rejected consistently up to the State Chief Information Commissioner (1st respondent); the challenge before the learned Single Judge of the Kerala High Court failed, but the Division Bench directed reconsideration. On the second round, the State Information Commissioner, the Single Judge, and the Division Bench all affirmed the member's right to the documents. The Bank appealed to the Supreme Court.
Key Facts
- The 4th respondent is a Member of the appellant-Bank
- The documents sought: (i) construction agreement between the appellant-Bank and a Labour Co-operative Society; (ii) minutes of the last General Body Meeting of the appellant-Bank
- The Bank contended it is not a "public authority" under the RTI Act
- The Registrar (2nd respondent) is the Joint Registrar (General) of Co-operative Societies
- The Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969, Sections 65 and 66 confer inspection and supervisory powers on the Registrar
- Amendments to the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act inserted Sections 66(4A) and (11), the latter being a non-obstante clause overriding sub-sections (1) and (2)
Procedural History
- First RTI application: Filed by 4th respondent before 2nd respondent (Joint Registrar); rejected consistently up to 1st respondent (State Information Commissioner)
- First judicial challenge: Writ petition before Single Judge, Kerala High Court - dismissed
- First Division Bench ruling: Directed reconsideration of the application
- Second round: State Information Commissioner, Single Judge, and Division Bench all affirmed the 4th respondent's right to the documents
- Present appeals: Civil Appeal Nos. 13906 and 13907 of 2026 [arising from SLP (C) Nos. 12283 and 12846 of 2025] filed before the Supreme Court
- Judgment date: October 26, 2026
The Parties' Positions
Appellant-Bank: Contended it is not a "public authority" under the RTI Act; relied on Thalappalam Service Cooperative Bank Limited v. State of Kerala ((2013) 16 SCC 82) and Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court of India v. Subhash Chandra Agarwal ((2020) 5 SCC 481); argued Registrar's access under Sections 65 and 66 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act requires prior subjective satisfaction to initiate an inquiry, which was absent.
1st Respondent (State CIC): Argued the impugned judgment sustains access through the competent public authority (Registrar), which does not require the Society to be treated as a public authority under Section 2(h) RTI Act; statutory power to supervise under Section 66 supplies a distinct route of access; lawful custody by a public authority and statutory power to access documents from a private entity are distinct.
4th Respondent (Member, in-person): Highlighted amendments to the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act enlarging Section 66 by insertion of sub-sections (4A) and (11); Section 66(11) is a non-obstante clause conferring power to hold inquiry with necessary records and inspect the Society's office periodically; Thalappalam is inapplicable as it concerned deposits of bank accounts exempted under Section 8(1)(j); Subhash Chandra Agarwal affirms citizen's right under Section 3 RTI Act corresponding to statutory obligation of public authority.
Relief Sought
The appellant-Bank sought setting aside of the Division Bench judgment affirming the 4th respondent's right to the two documents. The 4th respondent sought enforcement of the right to receive the construction agreement and General Body Meeting minutes.
The Legal Issue
The central questions were: (1) Whether the Registrar of Co-operative Societies, as a public authority under the RTI Act, can access documents of a cooperative society (which is not a public authority) under Sections 65 and 66 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969, for the purpose of providing information to an applicant under the RTI Act; (2) Whether such statutory access is fettered by a requirement of prior subjective satisfaction to initiate an inquiry under Section 65; (3) Whether the exemptions under Sections 8(1)(d) (commercial confidence, trade secrets) and 8(1)(j) (personal information) of the RTI Act apply to the documents sought by a member of the society.
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant
Shri S.P. Chaly, Senior Counsel, relied on Thalappalam Service Cooperative Bank Limited v. State of Kerala ((2013) 16 SCC 82) to argue that the appellant-Bank is not a "public authority" under the RTI Act. He submitted that Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court of India v. Subhash Chandra Agarwal ((2020) 5 SCC 481) held that access by a public authority to information relating to a private body under the RTI Act should not be shackled by restrictions or pre-imposed conditions. He contended that Sections 65 and 66 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969, permit the Registrar access to society documents only after he enters a subjective satisfaction to conduct an inquiry. Since no such satisfaction was entered into or called for in considering the 4th respondent's application, the Registrar should be deemed to have no access to the Bank's documents, which for RTI purposes is a private entity.
For the Respondents
Shri Abhilash M.R., Counsel for the 1st respondent, submitted that the impugned judgment correctly sustains access through the competent public authority (Registrar), which does not require the Society to be treated as a public authority under Section 2(h) of the RTI Act. He argued that absence of a pending inquiry under Section 65 is inconsequential when the statutory power permits access. The statutory authority to supervise the functioning of the Society under Section 66 supplies a distinct route of access, and the two documents sought clearly fall within the ambit of such supervisory powers. He emphasized that lawful custody of documents by a public authority vis-à-vis the existence of a power on the public authority to access such documents from a private entity are distinct in application, and the latter would not require prior physical custody by the public authority.
The 4th respondent, appearing in-person, pointed out that post-RTI Act amendments to the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act enlarged the scope of Section 66 by insertion of sub-sections (4A) and (11). Sub-section (11) is a non-obstante clause overriding sub-sections (1) and (2) and conferring the Registrar power to hold an inquiry with necessary records of the Society and to inspect the office periodically. He submitted that Thalappalam is inapplicable as the dictum there concerned a cooperative society not being a public authority under the RTI Act, and the information sought was about deposits of bank accounts of members, which is exempted under Section 8(1)(j). Subhash Chandra Agarwal, a Constitution Bench decision, puts beyond cavil a citizen's right under Section 3 of the RTI Act corresponding to the statutory obligation of the public authority to perform duties entrusted under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the definition of "information" under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, which includes "information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force." The Division Bench had rightly found that the words "can access" emphasise the entitlement of the Registrar to obtain documents from the private body, extending beyond mere physical custody. The statutory power to access documents kept in the records of a Co-operative Society, as conferred on the Registrar under Section 65, cannot be curtailed to apply only when an inquiry is already in progress - without such documents, the Registrar would be unable to determine whether an inquiry is necessary in the first place.
Addressing the exemptions under Sections 8(1)(d) and (j), the Court extracted paragraphs 24 and 25 from CBSE v. Aditya Bandopadhyay ((2011) 8 SCC 497) on the object of the RTI Act and the scheme of exemptions. The Court held that clause (d) of Section 8(1) refers to injury to competitive position of a third party involving commercial confidence, trade secret, or intellectual property. The documents sought - the construction agreement (bid already over, contract awarded to a Labour Contract Society) and General Body Meeting minutes - neither encompass any aspect of trade secret or intellectual property nor commercial confidence affecting a competitive position. As for clause (j), the information sought cannot be termed "personal information" since the details of the contract and the minutes are sought by a Member of the Society. That it does not relate to any public activity or interest is not significant enough to decline the request if the documents are otherwise accessible.
The Court distinguished Thalappalam Service Cooperative Bank Limited ((2013) 16 SCC 82), noting that case preserved the right of the Registrar to seek information from an entity which is not a public authority, to the extent law permits, especially from societies registered under the Cooperative Societies Act over which he has supervision or administrative control. In Thalappalam, the information sought was about deposits of bank accounts of members, which is exempted under Section 8(1)(j) - unlike the present case.
On the pivotal question of whether the Registrar's access is fettered by prior satisfaction, the Court referred to paragraph 21 of Subhash Chandra Agarwal ((2020) 5 SCC 481), which adopts a broader definition of "hold" and "under the control of" to include the right and power of the public authority to get access to information, referring to dominion over the information or the right to any material. The Court held:
"The above extract does not; as would the appellant-Bank argue, fetter the access of the public authority when there is a pre-imposed condition or a restriction to the statutory power conferred on the authority. On the other hand, when the access is made subject to a condition or restriction, any situation in which the condition is satisfied or the restriction stands removed, the access would be enabled."
The Court analysed Section 65 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, which empowers the Registrar to hold an inquiry suo motu or on various contingencies (report by Vigilance Officer or Director of Co-operative Audit, application by majority of members or one-third of quorum, or by an Apex/Affiliated Society). The Court articulated a key principle:
"Trite is the principle that when a suo motu power is conferred on an authority, it can also be exercised when someone brings to the notice of the authority, the need for its invocation, which cannot at all be considered as extraneous to the suo motu power."
However, in exercising such suo motu power, the Registrar must enter a satisfaction as to the expediency of its exercise. Such satisfaction cannot be entered into in a vacuum. Section 65(2) provides the Registrar or authorised person "at all reasonable times, free access to the books, accounts, documents, securities, cash and other properties belonging to or in the custody of the Society." The Court concluded:
"When something amiss comes to the notice of the Registrar or is brought to his notice through an application, the satisfaction can be entered into only if he has access inter alia to the documents maintained by the Society and only then can he enter into a satisfaction either to initiate or not to initiate an inquiry. Access simpliciter, thus cannot be conditioned with a prior satisfaction, since without such access, the Registrar cannot enter upon a satisfaction."
The Court further noted that Section 66 confers supervisory powers and powers of inspection on the Registrar or authorised person, which can be exercised "as frequently as the Registrar may consider it necessary," including "an inspection of the books of the society." The Court found the Division Bench judgment "perfectly in order and in accordance with the provisions of law as also in consonance with the decisions cited."
The Verdict
The Supreme Court dismissed both appeals. The Court held that the Registrar has unfettered statutory authority under Sections 65 and 66 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969, to access documents of the cooperative society for the purpose of providing information under the RTI Act, and such access is not conditioned on a prior subjective satisfaction to initiate an inquiry. The exemptions under Sections 8(1)(d) and (j) of the RTI Act do not apply to the construction agreement and General Body Meeting minutes sought by a member of the society. The Court directed the 2nd respondent (Registrar) to call for the two documents immediately and in any event within two weeks and supply the same to the 4th respondent. Pending applications, if any, were also rejected.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Statutory Access Under RTI Act Is Not Hostage to Inquiry Pre-Conditions
The judgment establishes a clear principle: where a public authority (here, the Registrar) possesses statutory power to access documents of a private body (cooperative society) under a separate law (Kerala Co-operative Societies Act), that access cannot be made contingent on a prior satisfaction to initiate an inquiry. The logic is structural - the authority must first have access to documents to form the very satisfaction that an inquiry is warranted. Practitioners advising public authorities or private bodies subject to regulatory oversight should note that "access simpliciter" is a precondition to, not a consequence of, inquiry initiation. This reasoning extends beyond cooperative societies to any regulatory regime where a public authority has inspection powers under a parent statute.
Member's Right to Information Trumps Society's Claim of Commercial Confidence or Personal Information
The Court's narrow reading of Sections 8(1)(d) and (j) in the context of a member's request is significant. For Section 8(1)(d), the Court held that once a bid is concluded and a contract awarded, the terms of that contract do not constitute "commercial confidence" affecting a competitive position - especially when the requester is a member with a direct stake. For Section 8(1)(j), the Court rejected the argument that a society's internal documents are "personal information" of the private entity where the applicant is a member. The relationship between the applicant and the private body matters: a member cannot be denied information on the ground that it is "personal to the Society" or lacks "public activity or interest." This distinction will be critical in future RTI disputes involving housing societies, credit cooperatives, and other member-based organisations.
Thalappalam Limited to Its Facts - Not a Blanket Shield for Cooperatives
The Court expressly confined Thalappalam Service Cooperative Bank Limited to its facts: that case involved a request for deposits of bank accounts of members, which falls squarely within the Section 8(1)(j) exemption for personal information. The present judgment clarifies that Thalappalam does not establish a broad proposition that cooperative societies are immune from RTI-driven disclosure through the Registrar. Where the information sought is not exempted under Sections 8(1)(a) to (j), and the Registrar has statutory access powers, the RTI machinery operates fully. Practitioners should cite this judgment to counter blanket reliance on Thalappalam by cooperative societies resisting RTI applications.
Practical Takeaways for Lawyers
- When filing RTI applications for cooperative society documents, invoke the Registrar's statutory access powers under the relevant Co-operative Societies Act (Sections 65/66 or equivalent) rather than arguing the society is a public authority.
- If the Registrar refuses citing "no inquiry pending," cite this judgment: access to documents is a prerequisite to forming satisfaction for inquiry, not its fruit.
- For Section 8(1)(d) objections, demonstrate that the commercial transaction is complete (bid over, contract awarded) and the applicant has a direct interest (member, allottee, creditor).
- For Section 8(1)(j) objections, argue that the applicant's membership or direct relationship with the private body removes the "personal information" shield.
- Note the two-week compliance deadline set by the Court - a useful benchmark for seeking timely compliance in similar matters.
