v. The State Chief Information Commissioner & Ors.

2026 INSC 1153 Reportable

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

Civil Appeal No.13906 of 2026 [ @ Special Leave Petition (C) No.12283 of 2025 ]

The Muppathadam Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd.

…. Appellant Versus The State Chief Information Commissioner & Ors.

…. Respondents WITH

Civil Appeal No.13907 of 2026 [ @ Special Leave Petition (C) No.12846 of 2025 ]

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 2 nd

respondent, Joint Registrar (General) of the Co- Signature Not Verified

operative Societies. The request made was for two Digitally signed by VISHAL ANAND Date: 2026.10.26 14:09:35 IST Reason:

documents: a copy of the construction agreement

Page 1 of 14 CA@SLP (C) No.12283 of 2025 Etc.

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 1 st respondent,

the learned Single Judge as also the Division Bench of

the High Court affirmed the right of the 4 th 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 Others1. It was

argued that the appellant-Bank is not a ‘public

authority’ and this Court in Central Public

1 (2013) 16 SCC 82 Page 2 of 14 CA@SLP (C) No.12283 of 2025 Etc.

Information Officer, Supreme Court of India v.

Subhash Chandra Agarwal2 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 4 th 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 Page 4 of 14 CA@SLP (C) No.12283 of 2025 Etc.

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

the law as coming out from the decisions and after

extracting the relevant provisions, found that Section

2(f) of the RTI Act; defining ‘information’, by use of the

words ‘can access’ emphasises the entitlement of the

Registrar to obtain documents from the private body

and this extends beyond mere physical custody of the

documents. The statutory power to access the

documents kept in the records of a Co-operative

Society, as conferred to the Registrar under Section 65,

cannot be curtailed to apply only when an inquiry is

already in progress. Sans these documents, the

Registrar would be unable to determine whether an Page 5 of 14 CA@SLP (C) No.12283 of 2025 Etc.

inquiry is necessary in the first place was the finding.

7. The contention of the appellant-society, as we see

from the records also extends to clauses (d) and (j) of

Section 8(1) of the RTI Act. For better understanding we

extract paragraph 24 and 25 from CBSE v. Aditya

Bandopadhyay3 :

“24. Section 3 of the RTI Act provides that subject to the provisions of this Act all the citizens shall have the right to information. The term “right to information” is defined in Section 2(j) as the right to information accessible under the Act which is held by or under the control of any public authority. Having regard to Section 3, the citizens have the right to access all the information held by or under the control of any public authority except those excluded or exempted under the Act. The object of the Act is to empower the citizens to fight against corruption and hold the Government and their instrumentalities accountable to the citizens, by providing them access to information regarding functioning of every public authority.

25. Certain safeguards have been built into the Act so that the revelation of information will not conflict with other public interests which include efficient operation of the Governments, optimum use of limited fiscal resources and preservation of confidential and sensitive information. The RTI Act provides access

to information held by or under the control of public authorities and not in regard to information held by any private person. The Act provides for the following exclusions by way of exemptions and exceptions (under Sections 8, 9 and 24) in regard to information held by the public authorities:”

8. Clause (d) of Section 8(1) refers to injury caused

to the competitive position of a third party, when the

information involves a commercial confidence, trade

secret or intellectual property. The documents as

referred to hereinabove neither encompasses any

aspect of trade secret or intellectual property nor of a

commercial confidence affecting a competitive position;

since already the bid is over and one Labour Contract

Society has obtained the contract, the terms of which

any Member of the Society would be concerned with. As

far as clause (j) is concerned the information sought

cannot be termed to be a personal information, since

the details of the contract sought for, entered into by

the appellant-Bank and the Minutes of the General Body

Meeting, are sought for by a Member of the Society.

That it does not have any relation to any public activity

Page 7 of 14 CA@SLP (C) No.12283 of 2025 Etc.

or interest, in that context, is not significant enough to

decline the request, if the documents are otherwise

accessible.

9. The position would definitely be different if a third

party not connected with the Society raises an identical

request. Every citizen would not have the right to ask

for the documents since the concept of personal

information cannot be restricted to a ‘person’ in flesh

and blood and even applies to a private entity, with

whose affairs every citizen cannot be found to have an

interest, unless it has a relationship to a public activity

(Section 8(1)(j). Neither the building contract nor the

General Body Meeting concerns a party, totally

unconnected with the Society. However, a Member of

the Society cannot be denied such information on the

ground that it is personal to the Society or that it does

not involve any public activity or interest.

10. Thalappalam Service Cooperative Bank

Limited1 preserves the right of the Registrar of the

Cooperative Societies to seek information from an

entity which is not a public authority, from societies too,

Page 8 of 14 CA@SLP (C) No.12283 of 2025 Etc.

to the extent law permits. Especially from societies

registered under the Cooperative Societies Act, over

which he has supervision or administrative control

under the Act to divulge such information to an

applicant under the RTI Act, if the information asked for

is not barred by clauses (a) to (j) of Section 8(1).

Therein the information sought was about the deposits

of bank accounts of members, which is exempted under

Section 8(1)(j).

11. The question now boils down to whether the

Registrar can have unfettered access to the documents

and whether on the request of the 4 th respondent; a

Member of the appellant-Bank, he could access such

documents for the purpose of providing information

under the RTI Act. Section 2(f) of the RTI Act provides as

under: - “2(f) "information" means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating Page 9 of 14 CA@SLP (C) No.12283 of 2025 Etc.

to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force.” [underlining by us for emphasis]

12. Hence, it is not only the material, physically

available with a public authority but also such material

relating to a private body, which can be accessed by a

public authority, on the strength of statutory powers

conferred, would fall under the definition of information.

As has been rightly noticed in the impugned judgment,

the words ‘can be accessed by a public authority’ refers

to access being statutorily provided. The power cannot

be fettered at all. In this context, we notice paragraph

21 from Subhash Chandra Agarwal2. “21. What is explicit as well as implicit from the definition of “information” in clause (f) to Section 2 follows and gets affirmation from the definition of “right to information” that the information should be accessible by the public authority and “held by or under the control of any public authority”. The word “hold” as defined in Wharton's Law Lexicon, 15th Edn., means to have the ownership or use of; keep as one's own, but in the context of the present legislation, we would prefer to adopt a broader definition of the word “hold” in Black's Law Dictionary, 6th Edn., as meaning; to keep, to retain, to maintain possession of or authority over. Page 10 of 14 CA@SLP (C) No.12283 of 2025 Etc.

The words “under the control of any public authority” as per their natural meaning would mean the right and power of the public authority to get access to the information. It refers to dominion over the information or the right to any material, document, etc. The words “under the control of any public authority” would include within their ambit and scope information relating to a private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force subject to the pre- imposed conditions and restrictions as applicable to access the information.”

[emphasis supplied through underlining]

13. 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. Insofar as

Rules 65 and 66 are concerned we need not go that

extent. We are of the opinion that there is no such

fetter on the statutory authority to have access to the

Page 11 of 14 CA@SLP (C) No.12283 of 2025 Etc.

documents and the prior satisfaction required is only to

initiate an inquiry.

14. The specific contention raised by the learned

Senior Counsel was that only on the satisfaction

entered by the Registrar that an inquiry can be

initiated and only then, the Registrar is enabled to

have access of the documents of a Society. We are

unable to agree. The inquiry by the Registrar under

Section 65 of the Co-operative Societies Act can be suo

motu; on his own motion, or on various contingencies

as coming forth from clause (b) to (f) i.e. of a report; by

the Vigilance Officer or by the Director of Co-operative

Audit or an application; made before the Registrar,

either by a majority of the Members or one third of the

quorum for a general body meeting or an Apex or

Affiliated Society. 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 exercise of such suo motu power either by Page 12 of 14 CA@SLP (C) No.12283 of 2025 Etc.

itself or on a repot or an application by another, the

public authority conferred with such powers, herein the

Registrar has to enter a satisfaction insofar as the

expediency of exercise of such suo motu powers. Such

satisfaction cannot be entered into in a vacuum and it

is, hence, sub-section (2) of Section 65 provides the

Registrar or the person authorized by him to have, 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.

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.

15. As has been rightly pointed out by the 4 th

respondent, Section 66 of the Co-operative Societies Page 13 of 14 CA@SLP (C) No.12283 of 2025 Etc.

Act confers supervisory powers and powers of

inspection on the Registrar or a person authorized by

him. This can be done as per sub-section (1), as

frequently as the Registrar may consider it necessary,

which supervision includes ‘an inspection of the books

of the society’. We are hence, convinced that the

judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court is

perfectly in order and in accordance with the provisions

of law as also in consonance with the decisions cited.

We, hence, find absolutely no reason to interfere with

the same. The 2nd respondent shall call for the two

documents immediately and in any event within two

weeks and supply the same to the 4th respondent.

16. The appeals stand dismissed.

17. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand

rejected.

.……………………………... J. (J. B. PARDIWALA)

..………….…………………. J. (K. VINOD CHANDRAN)

NEW DELHI; OCTOBER 26, 2026.

Page 14 of 14 CA@SLP (C) No.12283 of 2025 Etc.