1. A member of a cooperative society sought access to construction and meeting documents from the registrar via the RTI Act after society refusals. (Para 2 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(SC) 1284
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
J. B. PARDIWALA, K. VINOD CHANDRAN, JJ.
The Muppathadam Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
The State Chief Information Commissioner & Ors. – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 13906 of 2026 [@ Special Leave Petition (C) No. 12283 of 2025] With Civil Appeal No. 13907 of 2026 [@ Special Leave Petition (C) No. 12846 of 2025]
Decided On : 26-10-2026
Important Points
Under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, information held by a private body is accessible if a public authority has statutory power to access it under any other law, regardless of physical custody or the requirement of a prior formal inquiry.
Subject
Constitutional Law - Right to Information
Act Referred
Headnote
(A) Right to Information Act, 2005 - Sections 2(f), 2(j), 8(1)(d) and 8(1)(j) - State Co-operative Societies Act - Sections 65 and 66 - Definition of 'information' - Information relating to a private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law in force constitutes 'information' under Section 2(f) - The term 'can access' emphasizes the entitlement of a regulator to obtain documents from a private body, extending beyond mere physical custody (Paras 6, 11, 12).
(B) Statutory access vs. Prior satisfaction - The power of a regulatory authority to access records of a society for supervisory purposes is not contingent upon the initiation of a formal inquiry - Access simpliciter cannot be conditioned with prior satisfaction, as such access is often a prerequisite to determine whether initiating an inquiry is necessary (Paras 13, 14, 15).
(C) Exemptions under Section 8(1) - Information regarding construction agreements and minutes of general body meetings sought by a member of the society does not constitute commercial confidence or trade secrets under clause (d), nor personal information under clause (j), as it pertains to governance and administrative actions of the entity (Paras 8, 9).
Facts of the case:
A member of a co-operative bank sought copies of a construction agreement and the minutes of the last General Body Meeting through an application under the RTI Act. The application was filed before the registrar of co-operative societies. The request was consistently rejected on the grounds that the bank was not a public authority and that the registrar could only access records during a formal inquiry. The High Court affirmed the right of the member to access these documents.
Findings of Court:
The court found that while the bank may not be a public authority, the registrar is one. Since the registrar has statutory powers under the state co-operative laws to inspect and access the documents of the society, such records fall within the definition of 'information' under the RTI Act. The court further found that the specific documents sought did not fall under the exempted categories of commercial confidence or personal information when requested by a member of the society.
Issues: Whether the regulatory authority can access documents of a non-public authority for the purpose of disclosing them under the RTI Act, and whether such access is conditioned upon a prior satisfaction to conduct a formal inquiry.
Ratio Decidendi: Under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, the definition of 'information' includes materials relating to a private body that a public authority is statutorily empowered to access. Statutory supervisory and inspection powers provide a legal route for access that is not restricted to the pendency of a formal inquiry; rather, the power to access is essential to determine if an inquiry is warranted. Where a requester is a member of the entity, governance documents are not protected by personal or commercial confidence exemptions.
Result: Appeals dismissed.
(B) Statutory access vs. Prior satisfaction - The power of a regulatory authority to access records of a society for supervisory purposes is not contingent upon the initiation of a formal inquiry - Access simpliciter cannot be conditioned with prior satisfaction, as such access is often a prerequisite to determine whether initiating an inquiry is necessary (Paras 13, 14, 15).
(C) Exemptions under Section 8(1) - Information regarding construction agreements and minutes of general body meetings sought by a member of the society does not constitute commercial confidence or trade secrets under clause (d), nor personal information under clause (j), as it pertains to governance and administrative actions of the entity (Paras 8, 9).
Facts of the case:
A member of a co-operative bank sought copies of a construction agreement and the minutes of the last General Body Meeting through an application under the RTI Act. The application was filed before the registrar of co-operative societies. The request was consistently rejected on the grounds that the bank was not a public authority and that the registrar could only access records during a formal inquiry. The High Court affirmed the right of the member to access these documents.
Findings of Court:
The court found that while the bank may not be a public authority, the registrar is one. Since the registrar has statutory powers under the state co-operative laws to inspect and access the documents of the society, such records fall within the definition of 'information' under the RTI Act. The court further found that the specific documents sought did not fall under the exempted categories of commercial confidence or personal information when requested by a member of the society.
Issues: Whether the regulatory authority can access documents of a non-public authority for the purpose of disclosing them under the RTI Act, and whether such access is conditioned upon a prior satisfaction to conduct a formal inquiry.
Ratio Decidendi: Under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, the definition of 'information' includes materials relating to a private body that a public authority is statutorily empowered to access. Statutory supervisory and inspection powers provide a legal route for access that is not restricted to the pendency of a formal inquiry; rather, the power to access is essential to determine if an inquiry is warranted. Where a requester is a member of the entity, governance documents are not protected by personal or commercial confidence exemptions.
Result: Appeals dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. C. K. Sasi- 1323, AOR Mr. S.P Chaly, Sr. Adv. Mr. P. S. Sudheer, AOR Mr. Rishi Maheshwari, Adv. Ms. Anne Mathew, Adv. Mr. Bharat Sood, Adv. Mr. Jai Govind M J, Adv. Mr. Jashan Vir Singh, Adv. Mr. Shivam Sharma, Adv. Mr. Zulfiker Ali, AOR Mr. Anna Oommen, Adv.
For the Respondent(s):Mr. Abhilash M.R., Adv. Mr. Sayooj Mohandas, Adv. Ms. Manjari Singh, Adv. Ms. Ann Melvin, Adv. For M/s M R Law Associates, AOR Respondent-in-person
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. C. K. Sasi- 1323, AOR Mr. S.P Chaly, Sr. Adv. Mr. P. S. Sudheer, AOR Mr. Rishi Maheshwari, Adv. Ms. Anne Mathew, Adv. Mr. Bharat Sood, Adv. Mr. Jai Govind M J, Adv. Mr. Jashan Vir Singh, Adv. Mr. Shivam Sharma, Adv. Mr. Zulfiker Ali, AOR Mr. Anna Oommen, Adv.
For the Respondent(s):Mr. Abhilash M.R., Adv. Mr. Sayooj Mohandas, Adv. Ms. Manjari Singh, Adv. Ms. Ann Melvin, Adv. For M/s M R Law Associates, AOR Respondent-in-person
Table of Contents
2. The society argued it is not a public authority and documents are private, while the respondents contended the registrar's supervisory powers authorize document access under the RTI Act. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 )
3. The court observed that statutory power for a public authority to access documents from a private body constitutes information held by the public authority under the RTI Act. (Para 6 , 14 , 15 )
4. Under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, information held by a private body becomes accessible if a public authority possesses statutory power to access such materials. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 )
5. The court dismissed the appeals and directed the registrar to produce the requested documents to the applicant within two weeks. (Para 15 , 16 )
6. Does a private cooperative society's document fall under the definition of 'information' for RTI Act purposes if the registrar has statutory powers of supervision?
Yes. Information relating to a private body is considered accessible if a public authority has the statutory power to access it under any law for the time being in force. (Para 11 , 12 )
7. Is the registrar's power to access a society's documents under the Cooperative Societies Act contingent upon a pending formal inquiry?
No. The power to access is not conditional on an inquiry already being in progress; the registrar requires such access to determine whether an inquiry is even necessary. (Para 6 , 13 , 14 )
8. Can a member of a cooperative society be denied information on the grounds that it is personal information of the society?
No. A member cannot be denied access to documents like contracts or general body minutes on the basis that they involve 'personal' affairs, as members have a legitimate interest. (Para 8 , 9 )
JUDGMENT
K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.
Leave granted.
2. The 4th respondent who appeared as party-in-person had been persistently pursuing his application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 before the 2nd respondent, Joint Registrar (General) of the Cooperative Societies. The request made was for two documents: a copy of the construction agreement between the appellant/Co-operative Bank and a Labour Co-operative Society, which was entrusted with the construction of a building, and a copy of the minutes of the last General Body Meeting of the appellant-Bank. The 4th respondent is a Member of the appellant-Bank. His first application was rejected consistently upto the 1st respondent, the State Information Commissioner, the challenge to which before the learned Single Judge failed but the Division Bench directed reconsideration. On the second round consistently the 1st respondent, the learned Single Judge as also the Division Bench of the High Court affirmed the right of the 4th respondent to the documents. The judgment of the Division Bench is challenged before us.
3. Sh. S.P. Chaly, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant-Bank, placed reliance on Thalappalam Service Cooperative Bank Limited and Others v. State of Kerala and Others 1, (2013) 16 SCC 82. It was argued that the appellant-Bank is not a ‘public authority’ and this Court in Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court of India v. Subhash Chandra Agarwal2, (2020) 5 SCC 481 held that the access by a public authority to the information relating to a private body, as provided under the RTI Act, should not be shackled by restrictions or pre-imposed conditions. Section 65 and 66 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969 is relied on to find that such access is available to the Registrar only after he enters a subjective satisfaction to conduct an inquiry. There being no such satisfaction entered into, nor called for in considering the application filed by 4th respondent, the 2nd respondent-Registrar should be deemed to have no access to the documents of the appellant-Bank, which for the purposes of the RTI Act, is a private entity as distinguished from the public authority.
4. Sri Abhilash M.R., learned Counsel appearing for the 1st respondent points out that the impugned judgment clearly sustains the access through the competent public authority, which does not require the Society to be treated as a public authority, under Section 2(h) of the RTI Act. According to him, 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 for clearly come within the ambit of such supervisory powers. The lawful custody of the 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 its application and the latter would not require prior physical custody by the public authority.
5. The 4th respondent points out that after the RTI Act, amendments were made to the Kerala Cooperative Societies Act, enlarging the scope of Section 66 by insertion of sub-sections (4A) and (11) to Section 66. Sub-section (11) is a non-obstante Clause, which overrides sub-sections (1) & (2) and confers the Registrar the power to hold an inquiry, with the necessary records of the Society and to inspect the office of the Society periodically. Thalappalam SCB Limited1 is not at all applicable, since the dictum was of a Co-operative Society not being a public authority under the RTI Act. Subhash Chandra Agarwal2 a Constitution Bench decision puts beyond any cavil a citizen’s right under Section 3 of the RTI Act corresponding to the statutory obligation of the public authority to perform the duties entrusted with it under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act.
6. The Division Bench after a detailed examination of
