Cooperative Society Cannot Deny RTI Information To Member As 'Personal' If Registrar Can Access Such Records : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Monday (October 26) held that a member of a cooperative society cannot be denied information about the affairs of the cooperative society under the Right to Information Act, 2005 merely because the cooperative society doesn't come under the ambit of 'public authority'.

“…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.”, observed a bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice K Vinod Chandran, emphasising that when a public authority has an access to the documents of a cooperative society under a different law then an information under the RTI cannot be concealed to its member.

The respondent, a member of the bank, had sought the two documents under the RTI Act from the Joint Registrar (General) of Cooperative Societies. His request was initially rejected, but in the second round of proceedings, the State Information Commissioner and the Kerala High Court upheld his right to access the records.

The bank approached the Supreme Court, arguing that it was not a “public authority” under the RTI Act and that the Registrar could access its records under Section 65 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969, only after deciding to initiate an inquiry.

Dismissing the appeal, the judgment authored by Justice Chandran held that Section 2(f) of the RTI Act covers information relating to private bodies that a public authority can access under another law. The Registrar need not already possess the documents or decide to initiate an inquiry before accessing them.

According to the court, once the Registrar had the power to access the documents in possession of the Appellant-cooperative bank, then by virtue of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, the Appellant-bank was obligated to provide information to its member.

The Court also rejected the bank's reliance on the exemptions under Sections 8(1)(d) and 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, which concern commercial confidence and personal information.

“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 or interest, in that context, is not significant enough to decline the request, if the documents are otherwise accessible.”, the Court observed.

On the contrary, the Court said that the situation would have been different if the third party, being unconnected to the Appellant, raised 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.”, the Court observed.

The Court relied on its earlier decisions, including Thalappalam Service Cooperative Bank Ltd. v. State of Kerala and Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court of India v. Subhash Chandra Agarwal, to examine the scope of access to information relating to private bodies through public authorities.

As a result, the appeal was dismissed.

“As has been rightly pointed out by the 4th respondent, Section 66 of the Co-operative Societies 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.”, the Court held.

Appearance:

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. S.P. Chaly, Sr. Adv. Mr. Zulfikar Ali, AOR Mr. Anna Oommen, Adv. Mr. C. K. Sasi,, AOR Mr. P. S. Sudheer, AOR Mr. Rishi Maheshwari, Adv. Ms. Anne Mathew, Adv. Mr. Bharat Sood, Adv. Mr. Jai Govind M J, Adv. Mr. Jashan Vir Singh, Adv. Mr. Shivam Sharma, Adv. Petitioner-in-person

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Abhilash M.R., Adv. Mr. Sayooj Mohandas, Adv. Ms. Manjari Singh, Adv. Ms. Ann Melvin, Adv. For M/s M R Law Associates, AOR Respondent-in-person