S. Muralidhar, J.

The Question

1. A feature common to the three petitioners - the Krishak Bharti Co-operative Ltd. (KRIBHCO) [the petitioner in W.P. (C) No. 6129/2007], the National Cooperative Consumer Federation of India Ltd. (NCCF) [the petitioner in W.P. (C) No. 7770/2008] and the National Agricultural Cooperative Federation of India Ltd (NAFED) [the petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 7787/2008] - is that each is a society deemed to be registered under the Multi-State Co-operative Societies Act, 2002 ('MSCS Act'). The question for consideration is whether each petitioner is a "public authority" within the meaning of Section 2(h) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act)? The Central Information Commission (CIC) has, by an order dated 9th September 2008 (in the case of NAFED and NCCF) and by an order dated 10th July 2007 (in the case of KRIBHCO) answered the question in the affirmative. The CIC's aforementioned orders have been challenged in these petitions.

The Context

2. Before proceeding to notice the facts in each of the petitions, it is necessary to interpret the words "public authority" under Section 2 (h) of the RTI Act given the context of the RTI Act and in relation to the MSCS Act. The Statement of Objects and Reasons (SOR) of the RTI Act indicates that in order to ensure greater and more effective access to information, the earlier Freedom of Information Act, 2002 was extensively overhauled. It was envisaged that there would be an appellate machinery with investigating powers to review the decisions of the Public Information Officers. The RTI Act has provisions that make the failure to provide any information as per law punishable with fine. It has "provisions to ensure maximum disclosure and minimum exemptions, consistent with the constitutional provisions, and effective mechanism for access to information and disclosures by authorities."

3. The preamble to the RTI Act indicates that it is a statute to provide for "setting out the practical regime of right to information for citizens to secure access to information under the control of public authorities, in order to promote transparency and accountability in the working of every public authority, the constitution of a Central Information Commission and State Information Commissions and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto." The preamble to the RTI Act notes that "democracy requires an informed citizenry and transparency of information which are vital to its functioning and also to contain corruption and to hold Governments and their instrumentalities accountable to the governed;".

4. It is in the background of the above `context' of the RTI Act that its provisions have to be interpreted. Section 2 which is the definition section begins with the words "In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires...". The learned author Justice G.P. Singh observes: "When the question arises as to the meaning of a certain provision in a statute, it is not only legitimate but proper to read that provision in its context." (G.P.Singh, Principles of Statutory Interpretation, 9th Edn. 2004, p.31) In R.S. Raghunath v. State of Karnataka, (1992) 1 SCC 335 it was observed (SCC at p. 347):

"It is also well settled that the Court should examine every word of a statute in its context and to use context in its widest sense. In Reserve Bank of India v. Peerless General Finance and Investment Co. Ltd., (1987) 1 SCC 424 it is observed that: "That interpretation is best which makes the textual interpretation match the contextual."

In this case, Chinnappa Reddy, J. noting the importance of the context in which every word is used in the matter of interpretation of statutes held thus: (SCC p. 450, para 33)

"Interpretation must depend on the text and the context. They are the bases of interpretation. One may well say if the text is the texture, context is what gives the colour. Neither can be ignored. Both are important. That interpretation is best which makes the textual interpretation