Supreme Court Holds That Co-operative Societies’ Documents Can Be Accessed Under the RTI Act Through Statutory Powers of the Registrar

In a judgment delivered on October 26, 2026, the Supreme Court of India dismissed appeals filed by a co-operative bank and upheld the division bench ruling of the High Court. Justice K. Vinod Chandran, writing for the bench, held that even though co-operative societies are not “public authorities” under Section 2(h) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act), documents held by them can still be accessed and provided to a member under the RTI Act if the Registrar of Co-operative Societies possesses statutory powers of inspection and access under the state co-operative legislation.

Background

• The RTI Request: The 4th respondent, a member of the appellant co-operative bank, filed an RTI application before the Joint Registrar (General) of Co-operative Societies (Respondent No. 2) seeking two specific documents:
  1. A copy of the construction agreement between the appellant bank and a Labour Co-operative Society entrusted with building construction.
  2. A copy of the minutes of the last General Body Meeting of the bank.
• The Legal Standoff: The bank resisted the disclosure, arguing that it is a private entity and not a public authority under the RTI Act, relying on Thalappalam Service Cooperative Bank Limited v. State of Kerala and Subhash Chandra Agarwal. Conversely, the Information Commissioner, the learned Single Judge, and the Division Bench of the High Court successively ruled in favor of the applicant, holding that the Registrar possesses statutory powers under Sections 65 and 66 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969, to access these records, thereby bringing them within the definition of “information” under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act.

Court’s Analysis

1. Definition of “Information” and Statutory Access Under Section 2(f) RTI Act

• Section 2(f) of the RTI Act includes not only material physically held by a public authority but also information relating to a private body “which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force”.
• Citing the Constitution Bench decision in Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court of India v. Subhash Chandra Agarwal, the Court clarified that the statutory power of a public authority (such as the Registrar) to inspect or get access to documents under supervisory laws enables citizens to seek such information through the RTI mechanism.

2. Powers of Inspection and Inquiry Under the Co-operative Societies Act

• The bank argued that the Registrar could only access documents after entering a “subjective satisfaction” to initiate an inquiry under Section 65.
• Rejecting this narrow interpretation, the Supreme Court held that access simpliciter cannot be conditioned upon a prior formal inquiry. Without free access to books, accounts, and documents at all reasonable times, the Registrar would be unable to examine if an inquiry is warranted in the first place. Furthermore, Section 66 confers distinct and wide-ranging supervisory and inspection powers on the Registrar.

3. Rights of Members Versus Third Parties Under Section 8(1)(d) and (j)

• Addressing exemptions under Section 8(1), the Court noted that construction contracts and general body minutes do not involve commercial confidences, trade secrets, or intellectual property injuring a competitive position once a bid is finalized.
• Crucially, the Court distinguished between third parties and members: while general citizens do not have an unfettered right to demand internal documents of a private co-operative society unless related to public activity (Section 8(1)(j)), a member of the society cannot be denied basic documents like building contracts and general body minutes on the ground that they are personal or private to the society.

Final Directions

• Appeals Dismissed: The Supreme Court affirmed the High Court’s judgment directing disclosure.
• Timeframe for Compliance: The 2nd respondent (Joint Registrar) was directed to call for the two documents immediately and supply them to the 4th respondent within two weeks.

Citation: The Muppathadam Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd. v. State Chief Information Commissioner (2026 INSC 1153)