Why a Registered Society Generally Falls Outside the RTI Act's Definition of Public Authority Under Section 2(h)

A recurring question in Indian information law is whether a society registered under a cooperative or societies registration statute is obligated to answer RTI applications. Applicants routinely demand records from cooperative banks, housing societies, educational trusts and marketing federations, only to be told that such bodies are not public authorities. Is that position legally sound, or can a society be compelled to furnish information under the Right to Information Act, 2005? The answer depends on ownership, control and financing — and it is ultimately a question of fact in each case.

The General Rule Established by the Supreme Court

The governing precedent is Thalappalam Service Cooperative Bank Limited and Others v. State of Kerala and Others2019 0 Supreme(SC) 1034. The Supreme Court held that cooperative societies registered under the Kerala Cooperative Societies Act, 1969 are not public authorities under Section 2(h) of the RTI Act merely because they are governed by a statute.

The Court drew a sharp line between a body created by a statute and a body that merely operates under a statute:

We can, therefore, draw a clear distinction between a body which is created by a Statute and a body which, after having come into existence, is governed in accordance with the provisions of a Statute.

Because the final authority in such societies vests in the general body of members — not the Registrar or the State Government — these bodies are body corporate, not statutory bodies. Merely being subject to regulatory supervision does not bring a society within the RTI framework 2019 0 Supreme(SC) 1034.

Consistent with this, High Courts have repeatedly quashed Information Commission orders directing cooperative societies to disclose records. Madras High Court decisions confirm that a cooperative society registered under the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act is not a public authority under Section 2(h) and is not bound to furnish information 2024 0 Supreme(Mad) 2684 and 2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 71047 and 2024 Supreme(Online)(P&H) 11193. The Delhi High Court similarly held that IFFCO is not a public authority merely because it receives subsidy from the Central Government 2026 0 Supreme(Mad) 1155. In another matter, a court held that a society need not provide information to a private requester because it is not amenable to the RTI Act 2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 20690.

The Control Test: Substantial, Not Merely Supervisory

Section 2(h)(d)(i) captures bodies that are owned, controlled or substantially financed by the appropriate government. The Supreme Court clarified that control here means control of a substantial nature:

The mere 'supervision' or 'regulation' as such by a statute or otherwise of a body would not make that body a 'public authority' within the meaning of Section 2(h)(d)(i) of the RTI Act.

In Thalappalam, although societies were subject to oversight by the Registrar, Joint Registrar and the Government, the State did not exercise direct or indirect control that was deep and all pervasive 2019 0 Supreme(SC) 1034.

The Substantial Financing Test

Financing must be material, real and existing — support so significant that the body would struggle to exist without it. In the D.A.V. College Trust principles, the Court observed that substantial means a large portion, not necessarily a majority or more than 50%, and that substantial financing can be direct or indirect 2019 0 Supreme(SC) 1034.

Notably, non-monetary aid counts. If land in a city is given free of cost or at heavy discount to a hospital or educational institution, that concession in itself could also be substantial financing 2019 0 Supreme(SC) 1034.

However, the financing must be continuing. Courts have held that land provided at a concessional rate almost five decades ago, without evidence of continued substantial financial support, takes a society outside the embrace of the RTI Act — and once a society is not a public authority, the Information Commission has no jurisdiction to direct disclosure 2018 0 Supreme(Chh) 683.

When a Society May Still Qualify as a Public Authority

The general rule yields to facts showing genuine state involvement:

• Ownership: the government holds legal title and ultimate control.
• Substantial financing: direct or indirect funding, including concessional land grants on which survival depends.
• Substantial control: government-nominated officials with effective, structural and determinative power over management — not merely regulatory oversight.

The Karnataka High Court's Nirmiti Kendra ruling illustrates the exception: the general body consisted of top district officers, day-to-day activities were run by State Government officers, and government institutional funding for public works established substantial financing — hence a public authority under Section 2(h).

More recently, courts have distinguished apex cooperative societies from primary societies. Where a State appoints the managing director, nominates functional directors, provides partnership funds, subjects the body to legislative audit, and exercises pervasive managerial, administrative, financial and regulatory control, the apex society qualifies as a public authority under Section 2(h)(d)(i). Subsidies or incidental funding alone, however, are insufficient 2026 0 Supreme(Mad) 1155.

Accessing Information About a Private Society Through a Public Authority

Even where the society itself is outside the Act, the RTI Act offers a route via Section 2(f), which defines information to include material relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force 2011 0 Supreme(SC) 748 and 2017 0 Supreme(Ker) 623. Section 2(j) is read to include information to which a public authority has a right of access from a private body 2022 0 Supreme(J&K) 38.

The Registrar of Cooperative Societies is himself a public authority under Section 2(h) and can, to the extent law permits, gather information from a society under his supervisory or administrative control 2024 0 Supreme(Ker) 1348 and 2024 0 Supreme(Ker) 634. The RTI Act's overriding effect under Section 22 means such information must be disclosed unless it falls within Section 8 exemptions — such as personal information protected under Section 8(1)(j).

A related constitutional development: Section 113(2) of the Uttar Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act, which purported to impose the RTI Act on cooperative societies, was struck down as beyond the State legislature's competence, since information rights fall within Parliament's domain 2016 Supreme(Online)(All) 55.

Practical Steps for Applicants and Societies

1. Verify financing: check for ongoing government grants, subsidies, concessional land or share capital participation that is material to existence.
2. Examine governance: look for government-nominated members or appointed officials exercising determinative control.
3. Route through the Registrar: if the society is not amenable, seek information through the Registrar or another public authority that can lawfully access it 2016 0 Supreme(Del) 1405.
4. Anticipate exemptions: Section 8(1)(j) and third-party confidentiality provisions may still limit disclosure.

Key Takeaways

The general position is that a registered society — cooperative or otherwise — does not come within the meaning of public authority under Section 2(h) of the RTI Act and need not furnish information in response to RTI applications. That presumption is rebuttable where the government owns the body, substantially finances it, or exercises substantial (not merely supervisory) control. Since these determinations are fact-specific, societies facing disclosure demands and applicants seeking records should assess the specific ownership, funding and control arrangements — and, where needed, consult a qualified legal professional for advice on a particular case.