By RTI Activist Pradip Pradhan
BHUBANESWAR:Those who are asking for information related to cooperative societies and ARCSs are not providing the information and are stating that these institutions are not within the ambit of the Information Act, this is intended to cover up lies and corruption. The Supreme Court has clarified in two of its judgments that ARCSs can use their administrative powers to collect information about cooperative societies and provide it to the applicants.
I have repeatedly told and written to the Information Commission’s Shri Jagannath Rath during his hearing. But sadly, he does not understand or read anything. I have never seen such a crazy person. We have challenged the Commission’s order in the High Court, which is under trial. The current Information Commission has no ability to interpret and understand the law. This is the misfortune of the state. The BJP government is very happy to appoint these fools in the Information Commission.
*Historic verdict of Supreme Court: Members of cooperative societies cannot be denied information under RTI Act*
*Original judgment: The Muppathadam Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. The State Chief Information Commissioner & Ors.*
Civil Appeal Nos. 13906/2026 and 13907/2026 | 2026 INSC 1153 |
Judgment Date: 26 October 2026.
Supreme Court of India.
Judges: Justice J. B. Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod Chandran
*Suggestion*
The Supreme Court of India has clarified an important legal principle in this judgment regarding transparency, accountability and members’ right to information in the functioning of cooperative banks and cooperative societies.
The Supreme Court has clarified that even if a cooperative bank argues that it is not a “Public Authority” under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act), this does not mean that information available under the statutory powers of the cooperative department can be kept hidden from the RTI applicant.
If the Registrar has the right to obtain documents, records and accounts of a society under the Cooperatives Act, then that information can be included in the ambit of “Information” under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act. For this, it is not necessary that the documents should already be physically present in the office of the Registrar.
In this judgment, the Supreme Court refused to interfere with the judgment of the Division Bench of the Kerala High Court and dismissed the appeals of the Cooperative Bank.
*This ruling is an important guide for members, workers, employees, CEOs and future CEOs of cooperative banks regarding transparency and protection of members’ rights in cooperative institutions.*
*Part-1: Introduction to the case and sequence of events*
*1. Name of the case and parties*
* Appellant: The Muppathadam Service Co-operative Bank Ltd.
* Respondent: The State Chief Information Commissioner and others.
* Case: Civil Appeal No. 13906 of 2026, SLP (C) No. 12283 of 2025; along with Civil Appeal No. 13907 of 2026, SLP (C) No. 12846 of 2025.
* Judgement: Supreme Court of India.
* Verdict Date: 26.10.2026.
*2. Who was the information requester?*
The fourth respondent in the case, the appellant himself, represented himself in court. He was a member of Muppathadam Service Co-operative Bank Ltd.
He applied for two documents under the Right to Information Act, 2005 to the Joint Registrar (General) of the Co-operative Societies Department, Kerala.
He wanted the following two documents:
1. Copy of the construction agreement between the Cooperative Bank and a Labour Co-operative Society. According to this agreement, the Labour Co-operative Society was given the responsibility of constructing a building.
2. Copy of the minutes of the latest General Body Meeting of the Cooperative Bank.
These two documents were related to the bank’s activities, construction agreements, and general meeting decisions.
*3. Rejection of the first application and subsequent legal proceedings*
The first information application of the applicant was rejected. He approached the higher authorities against this. Finally, the State Information Commissioner also did not grant his claim.
He appealed against this to the Single Judge of the High Court; but was initially unsuccessful there too. Later, the Division Bench of the High Court ordered a retrial of the case.
In the second stage, the State Information Commissioner, Single Judge, and Division Bench—all ultimately upheld the petitioner’s right to access the documents.
The Cooperative Bank approached the Supreme Court challenging this Division Bench verdict.
*Part 2: Arguments of the Appellant Bank in the Supreme Court*
*4. Cooperative Bank itself is not a “Public Authority”*
Senior advocate Shri S. P. Chaly, appearing for the bank, argued that the appellant Cooperative Bank is not a “Public Authority” under Section 2(h) of the RTI Act.
He relied on the following previous decisions:
* Thalappalam Service Cooperative Bank Limited v. State of Kerala, (2013) 16 SCC 82.
* Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court of India v. Subhash Chandra Agarwal, (2020) 5 SCC 481.
The bank’s argument was that the limitations and caveats of the RTI Act must be followed while determining the public’s right to access data of a private entity.
The bank further argued that although the Registrar has the power to inspect or seize the documents of any society under Sections 65 and 66 of the Kerala Cooperative Societies Act, 1969, he has to take a decision in accordance with the law before initiating an investigation.
Since the Registrar had not previously taken any decision to initiate such an investigation in this case, the bank was of the view that it could not ask for the bank’s documents to inform the applicant.
*5. Argument of State Chief Information Commissioner*
Advocate Shri Abhilash M. R., appearing for the first respondent, argued that the High Court’s judgment did not mean that the Cooperative Bank was to be declared a Public Authority under the RTI Act.
In his opinion, it is sufficient for the government authorities to have the power to obtain information in accordance with the law to provide information to RTI applicants.
He argued that:
1. The Registrar has statutory supervision and administrative control over the cooperative society.
2. His powers of inspection under Article 66 do not depend on the initiation of an investigation under Article 65.
3. Construction Agreement and Minutes of General Body Meeting are within the scope of this inspection power.
4. Having physical custody of documents with a government authority and having the power to obtain those documents under the law are two different things.
That is, even if a government authority does not already have the document, if it can obtain it under the law, then the obligation to provide information under the RTI Act may arise.
*6. Arguments of members of the Cooperative Bank*
The fourth respondent and a member of the Cooperative Bank submitted that after the enactment of the RTI Act, sub-sections (4A) and (11) were added to expand the scope of Section 66 of the Kerala Cooperative Societies Act.
In particular, under the non-obstante clause in Section 66(11), the Registrar is empowered to inspect the necessary records of the society and inspect the office of the society from time to time.
He further said that the Thalappalam Service Cooperative Bank judgment had decided the question of whether the cooperative society itself was a Public Authority or not. This does not mean that the Registrar does not have the right to obtain documents that are legally available to him.
He cited the decision of the Constitution Bench in the Subhash Chandra Agarwal case and said that the right of citizens to get information under Section 3 of the RTI Act and the duties of government authorities under the relevant law are interrelated.
*Part-3: High Court Judgment and Legal Questions*
*7. Importance of the word “can access” in Section 2(f) of the RTI Act*
The Division Bench of the High Court, after examining the relevant law and previous judicial decisions, came to the conclusion that the words “can access” in Section 2(f) of the RTI Act are very important.
This means that not only documents already in the custody of the government authority; but also documents that it obtains under lawful authority may fall within the scope of “Information”.
The High Court also held that the Registrar’s power to obtain documents under Section 65 cannot be limited to only when he has initiated a formal investigation.
This is because the Registrar may need to see some records before making a decision on whether an investigation is necessary.
*8. Section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act: Trade Secrets*
The Supreme Court noted that the bank’s argument was also relevant to Section 8(1)(d) and Section 8(1)(j).
Under Section 8(1)(d), disclosure of information relating to commercial confidence, commercial confidentiality, trade secret or intellectual property may be considered defamation if it is likely to harm the competitive position of a third party.
But the documents sought in this case were:
* A building construction contract;
* Minutes of the General Body Meeting of the Cooperative Bank.
The tender process for the construction work had been completed and a Labour Co-operative Society had been awarded the contract. Therefore, in the Supreme Court’s view, there was no sufficient basis to withhold these documents on the grounds that they were trade secrets or intellectual property information.
In particular, since the applicant himself was a member of the Cooperative Bank, he had a natural interest in the terms of the agreement.
*9. Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act: Personal Information*
The Supreme Court also considered the defamation of Article 8(1)(j).
The bank argued that the information sought related to the internal workings of a private company.
But the Supreme Court observed that the petitioner was himself a member of the cooperative bank. He wanted the construction agreement and minutes of the General Body Meeting. This was a cooperative activity related to his own interests.
In the court’s view, this information cannot be denied simply by saying it is “personal” or “not in the general public interest,” unless it is otherwise available under the law.
However, the Supreme Court also clarified an important limitation: if a third party, unrelated to the cooperative, seeks the same information, then its application must be considered separately. The judgment does not say that every citizen has the right to access every document of a private entity without any restrictions.
*Part-4: Analysis of previous judgments by the Supreme Court*
*10. CBSE v. Aditya Bandopadhyay case policy*
The Supreme Court cited the principle of paragraphs 24 and 25 of the case CBSE v. Aditya Bandopadhyay, (2011) 8 SCC 497.
The Odia translation of the main principles enunciated in this case is given below.
Article 24 — Right to information
According to Section 3 of the RTI Act, every citizen has the right to access information under the provisions of this Act.
“Right to Information” in Section 2(j) means information available under this Act, which is held by or under the control of any Public Authority.
According to Article 3, citizens have the right to access all information held by a public authority or under its control, unless that information is prohibited by law or is subject to censorship.
The purpose of this law is to empower citizens to fight corruption and hold the government and its agencies accountable. For this, the opportunity to obtain information about the workings of every Public Authority has been given.
Article 25 — Restrictions on disclosure of information
The RTI Act has certain safeguards to ensure that disclosure of information does not conflict with other public interests. These interests include the efficiency of government operations, optimal use of limited financial resources, and protection of confidential and sensitive information.
This law makes available information held by or under the control of a public authority; it does not mandate the automatic disclosure of all information held by any private individual.
Certain information is protected through restrictions or special provisions in Articles 8, 9 and 24.
Relevance of this earlier judgment: While the right to information is broad, it is not absolute. The restrictions in law must also be observed.
*11. Correct application of the Thalappalam Service Cooperative Bank case*
The Supreme Court clarified that the Thalappalam Service Cooperative Bank Limited v. State of Kerala judgment does not erode the statutory powers of the Registrar with regard to information of cooperative societies.
The judgment considered the question of whether the Cooperative Bank itself was a Public Authority under the RTI Act. In that case, the bank sought information related to the deposit accounts of its members, which came under the ambit of the prohibition of personal information under Section 8(1)(j).
But in the present case, the documents sought were a construction agreement and minutes of the General Body Meeting. The person seeking these two documents was himself a member of the bank.
According to the Supreme Court, it is possible to disclose information in an RTI application, which the Registrar is empowered to obtain under the Cooperatives Act, unless the relevant restrictions under Section 8(1)(a) to (j) prevent it.
*12. The Subhash Chandra Agarwal case and the meaning of “under the control”*
The Supreme Court also cited the principle of paragraph 21 of the case Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court of India v. Subhash Chandra Agarwal, (2020) 5 SCC 481.
The main implications of this decision are:
A reading of the definition of “Information” in Section 2(f) of the RTI Act and the definition of “Right to Information” in Section 2(j) together reveals that the information must be available to the Public Authority and must be in its possession or under its control.
The word “hold” generally means to keep something in one’s possession or custody. But in the context of this law, its meaning needs to be understood broadly.
“Under the control of any public authority” naturally means that the Public Authority has the right and power to obtain that information.
This may also include information relating to a private entity that a public authority may obtain under any other applicable law, subject to the conditions and restrictions of that law.
Supreme Court’s key finding: Even if the information is not physically kept in a government office, if there is a legal right to obtain that information, then it can come within the definition of the RTI Act.
*Part-5: Analysis of Sections 65 and 66 of the Cooperatives Act*
*13. Is it necessary to initiate an investigation in advance to obtain documents?*
The basic legal question in this case was—whether the Registrar is required to initiate an investigation under Section 65 before requesting documents of a cooperative society to provide information to an RTI applicant?
The Supreme Court did not accept the bank’s argument.
The court clarified that unnecessary restrictions cannot be imposed on the power to obtain documents conferred on the Registrar by law.
Under Section 65, the Registrar may initiate an investigation on his own initiative (suo motu). In addition, an investigation may also be initiated in the following circumstances:
* Vigilance Officer’s report;
* Report of the Director of Co-operative Audit;
* Legal application of members of the cooperative society;
* The request of one-third of the members of the quorum of the General Assembly;
* Application from Apex Society or Affiliated Society;
* Other relevant reports or circumstances specified in the law.
The Supreme Court held that when an authority is empowered to conduct an investigation on its own initiative, then that power can be exercised even if any matter is brought to its attention by any other person. This cannot be said to be an act beyond its jurisdiction.
*14. Article 65(2): Right to inspect records*
The Supreme Court emphasized on Section 65(2) of the Kerala Cooperative Societies Act.
Under this provision, the Registrar or a person authorized by him may, at reasonable times, have free access to inspect the books, accounts, documents, securities, cash and other property owned or in the custody of the society.
The court made a basic argument:
If the Registrar receives information about any irregularities, he must first take a satisfactory decision as to whether to initiate an investigation or not.
But how could he make such a decision without having the opportunity to see the documents?
Therefore, the right to obtain documents cannot be made conditional on the initiation of an investigation. Obtaining documents and the decision to initiate an investigation—although related—are not the same thing.
*15. “Prior Satisfaction” and Right to Obtain Documents*
The Supreme Court clarified that the Registrar’s own satisfaction is required to initiate an investigation under Section 65.
But this does not mean that he must have already decided to launch an investigation before receiving the documents.
The court’s reasoning was:
1. The Registrar may be informed of any irregularities.
2. It may be necessary to view relevant records to make a decision on that matter.
3. After checking the records, he can decide whether to initiate an investigation or not.
4. Therefore, it is not reasonable to make the right to obtain documents conditional on a prior decision to initiate an investigation.
This principle is a major legal contribution of the ruling.
*16. Section 66: Registrar’s powers of inspection and inspection*
The Supreme Court also considered the provisions of Article 66.
This section empowers the Registrar or a person authorized by him to inspect and inspect the activities of the cooperative society.
Under section 66(1), the Registrar may conduct such inspection as he may deem necessary. This inspection may include examining the books of accounts of the society.
This power is reserved for the initiation of a formal investigation under Article 65.
Therefore, the Supreme Court held that the Registrar had the power under the Cooperatives Act to obtain the documents sought by the petitioner.
*Part 6: Final Decision of the Supreme Court*
*17. There is no reason to interfere with the High Court’s verdict*
After considering all the legal provisions and previous judgments, the Supreme Court came to the conclusion that the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court was correct in law.
The court also said that there was no sufficient reason to interfere with the High Court’s verdict.
Therefore, the following final instructions were given:
* The second respondent, Joint Registrar (General), should immediately request the two documents sought by the applicant.
* In any case, the documents must be submitted to the applicant within two weeks from the date of the verdict.
* Two appeals were dismissed.
* If any internal appeal was pending, it was also dismissed.
The verdict was delivered by Justice J. B. Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod Chandran.
*The award was given in New Delhi on 26 October 2026.*
*Part 7: All the major legal questions considered in the judgment*
| Order | Legal Question | Supreme Court Decision |
| —- | —————————————————————————————- | ———————————————————————————————– |
| 1 | Can information be obtained even if the cooperative bank itself is not a Public Authority? | Yes, if the Public Authority can obtain that information legally. |
| 2 | Does the information need to be physically available in a government office? | No. The ability to obtain it legally may also be sufficient. |
| 3 | Is it necessary for the Registrar to first initiate an investigation under Section 65? | No. The receipt of documents cannot be made conditional upon the initiation of an investigation. |
| 4 | What is the significance of the Registrar’s inspection powers under Section 66? | It provides a specific legal basis for inspecting the records and accounts of the society. |
| 5 | Whether the construction agreement and the minutes of the General Body Meeting are subject to trade secrets? | On the facts of this case, there was no basis for withholding information by invoking the defamation clause of Section 8(1)(d). |
| 6 | Can the members of the cooperative society be denied that these documents are personal information? | They cannot be denied simply by saying that they are internal information of the society; the legal slander must be checked. |
| 7 | Does Thalappalam judgment restrict the power of the Registrar to obtain information? | No. Whether the cooperative society is a Public Authority or not, that question and the legal power of the Registrar are separate. |
| 8 | Is it necessary to interfere with the High Court’s verdict? | No. The appeals were dismissed and the documents were directed to be produced within two weeks. |
*Part-8: Legal Education for Cooperative Banks of Odisha*
The Supreme Court’s interpretation of Sections 2(f) and 2(j) of the RTI Act is important for all states.
1. Members should be aware of the working of their cooperative.
Members of a cooperative can use legal channels to learn about the organization’s construction work, agreements, general meeting decisions, and other member-related matters.
They should maintain reasonable oversight over the activities of their organization.
*2. The record of the Cooperative Bank is not completely untouched*
The Co-operative Bank is a legally regulated body. The Registrar has a lawful right of access to its records, which cannot be completely nullified merely by saying that the body itself is not a Public Authority.
*3. Responsibilities of PIO, Appellate Authority, CEO and Managing Authority of Cooperative Bank*
The PIO, Appellate Authority, CEO and the management authorities of the cooperative bank should consider the information request in accordance with the law. They should not unnecessarily reject all requests or declare all the records of the society as confidential.
At the same time, the confidentiality and restriction provisions of the law must also be respected.
*4. Legal basis should be cited before denying information*
If any information is said to be restricted under Article 8, the applicability of that restriction should be considered on the basis of facts and law.
In particular, documents such as a construction contract or minutes of a General Body Meeting requested by a member should be examined for specific restrictions of the law, rather than simply dismissing them as “domestic information.”
5. *Member’s right to information and third party’s rights are not the same*
An important limitation of this judgment is that the Supreme Court clarified that if a third party, unrelated to the cooperative, seeks the same information, it must be considered separately.
It should not be concluded from this judgment that all citizens have the right to freely access any document of any cooperative organization.
*Conclusion*
The main message of this Supreme Court judgment is that even if the cooperative itself is not a Public Authority under the RTI Act, the documents that the Registrar has the power to obtain under the Cooperative Act can be provided to the RTI applicant under the provisions of the Act.
If a member of a cooperative bank seeks information regarding the establishment agreement and decisions of the general meeting of his organization, he cannot be denied the information merely on the ground that the cooperative bank is not a public authority or that the documents are not already in the office of the Registrar.
This verdict is an important judicial decision towards strengthening transparency, members’ right to information, and administrative accountability in the cooperative sector.
