The Muppathadam Service Co Operative Bank Ltd vs The State Chief Information Commissioner

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
W I T H
Civil Appeal No.13907 of 2026
[ @ Special Leave Petition (C) No.12846 of 2025 ]
J U D G M E N T
K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.
Leave granted.
th
2. The 4 respondent who appeared as party-in-
person had been persistently pursuing his application
nd
under the Right to Information Act, 2005 before the 2
respondent, Joint Registrar (General) of the Co-
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
VISHAL ANAND
Date: 2026.10.26
14:09:35 IST
Reason:
operative Societies. The request made was for two
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.
th
The 4 respondent is a Member of the appellant-Bank.
His first application was rejected consistently upto the
st
1 respondent, the State Information Commissioner, the
challenge to which before the learned Single Judge
failed but the Division Bench directed reconsideration.
st
On the second round consistently the 1 respondent,
the learned Single Judge as also the Division Bench of
th
the High Court affirmed the right of the 4 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
1
and Others v. State of Kerala and Others . 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.
2
Subhash Chandra Agarwal 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
th
considering the application filed by 4 respondent, the
nd
2 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
st
the 1 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
2 (2020) 5 SCC 481
Page 3 of 14
CA@SLP (C) No.12283 of 2025 Etc.

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.
th
5. The 4 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.

1
Limited is not at all applicable, since the dictum was
of a Co-operative Society not being a public authority
2
under the RTI Act. Subhash Chandra Agarwal 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
3
Bandopadhyay :
“ 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
3 (2011) 8 SCC 497
Page 6 of 14
CA@SLP (C) No.12283 of 2025 Etc.

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
1
Limited 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
th
and whether on the request of the 4 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
2
21 from Subhash Chandra Agarwal .
“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.
th
15. As has been rightly pointed out by the 4
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
nd
the same. The 2 respondent shall call for the two
documents immediately and in any event within two
th
weeks and supply the same to the 4 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.