Introduction:

In the matter of The Muppathadam Service Co-operative Bank v The State Chief Information Commissioner and Others, the Kerala High Court delivered a significant verdict in Writ Appeal No. 2105 of 2024 that reaffirms the expansive interpretation of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act), especially in the context of cooperative societies. The division bench comprising Chief Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice S. Manu upheld the judgment of the single judge, which had dismissed the writ petition filed by the Muppathadam Service Co-operative Bank. The petition had challenged the direction of the Chief Information Commissioner (CIC) which required the Registrar of Cooperative Societies to obtain and provide certain information sought under the RTI Act. The information was requested by a member of the co-operative society, who sought details of an agreement entered into between the co-operative society and a labour contract society, and also the minutes or records of the last general body meeting. The society opposed this directive and carried the matter through appeal, arguing that such information, unless already in the possession of the Registrar, could not be made available through an RTI application.

Arguments of both sides:

The appellants, represented by Senior Advocates P. Ravindran and P. Deepak along with advocates Aparna Rajan, Lakshmi Ramadas, M. R. Sabu, and Sreedhar Ravindran, contended that under the Kerala Cooperative Societies Act, 1969, only limited documents that are statutorily mandated to be submitted to the Registrar fall within the scope of access under the RTI Act. In particular, the appellants placed reliance on Section 66 of the Kerala Cooperative Societies Act, which mandates the submission of certain records to the Registrar. They argued that only these specific documents, which are physically held by the Registrar, are covered by the RTI mechanism. The appellants asserted that the CIC had overstepped its jurisdiction by directing the Registrar to collect documents not already in possession unless an inquiry had been formally initiated under the Act. They further argued that Sections 65 and 66 of the Kerala Cooperative Societies Act, which grant the Registrar powers of inquiry and inspection, were limited to scenarios where a statutory inquiry had already commenced, and could not be invoked solely for the purpose of responding to an RTI application. In opposition, the respondents, represented by Advocates P. R. Ramachandran, M. Ajay (Standing Counsel), and V. Tekchand (Senior Government Pleader), asserted that the interpretation of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act clearly indicated that information “which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law” is well within the ambit of RTI disclosures. They emphasized that the statute uses the language “can access” rather than “has accessed” or “is in possession of,” signifying that even potential access under statutory authority is sufficient to bring a document within the scope of the RTI Act. The respondents pointed to the Supreme Court’s ruling in Thalappalam Service Cooperative Bank Ltd. and Others v. State of Kerala and Others (2013), where it was held that if the Registrar can access certain documents under the Kerala Cooperative Societies Act, then such documents can be treated as being held by a public authority under the RTI Act. They further argued that requiring an ongoing inquiry to trigger document accessibility would defeat the very objective of transparency and accountability envisaged by the RTI Act, especially when such access could potentially reveal the need for an inquiry in the first place.

Court’s Judgment:

The division bench of the Kerala High Court delivered a well-reasoned and significant judgment dismissing the writ appeal filed by the co-operative society. Relying extensively on the jurisprudence laid down by the Supreme Court in Thalappalam Service Cooperative Bank Ltd., the Court emphasized that the fundamental question was whether the information sought through the RTI application was one that the Registrar could access under the Kerala Cooperative Societies Act. The Court held that the phrase “can access” under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act is of paramount importance and indicates a deliberate choice by Parliament to widen the scope of information accessibility. The bench observed that if the legislative intent had been to restrict access only to documents physically held by the Registrar, then different language such as “is in possession of” or “has accessed” would have been employed. Instead, the use of “can access” conveys a statutory entitlement rather than actual possession. The Court rejected the appellant’s argument that only documents in the Registrar’s physical custody could be disclosed. It clarified that Sections 65 and 66 of the Kerala Cooperative Societies Act give the Registrar statutory powers to access documents even outside the scope of a formal inquiry, and that this power exists independently of whether an inquiry has been initiated or not. The Court reasoned that in order to even determine whether an inquiry is necessary, the Registrar may need to examine certain documents, and limiting access until an inquiry is formally launched would frustrate this preventive oversight mechanism. It was noted that Section 65 allows the Registrar to call for any documents for inquiry purposes and that Section 66 provides for inspections of books and records, all without the precondition of a formally triggered inquiry. The High Court emphasized that transparency in the functioning of cooperative societies is a crucial objective of the RTI Act. Since cooperative societies engage in financial and social activities impacting their members and the broader public, ensuring accountability is imperative. The Court also observed that the Registrar must act within the bounds of the Kerala Cooperative Societies Act while accessing such information, but that such access need not be contingent upon the existence of an inquiry. Further, the Court held that the information requested in this case—agreements and general body meeting documents—did not fall under any of the exempted categories mentioned in Section 8 of the RTI Act. Therefore, it was neither confidential nor barred from disclosure. The Court’s ruling affirmed the legal position that documents which a public authority is empowered to access, even if not physically in their custody, are covered under the RTI framework. Consequently, the Court upheld the order of the single judge who had refused to interfere with the CIC’s direction and dismissed the appeal filed by the cooperative society, thereby reinforcing the proactive interpretation of the RTI Act in favor of transparency and public interest.