RTI Act | Registrar Can Access Co-Operative Society Records For Information Applicant Without Prior Inquiry Satisfaction: Supreme Court

"Access simpliciter, thus cannot be conditioned with a prior satisfaction, since without such access, the Registrar cannot enter upon a satisfaction." Supreme Court, in a significant ruling dated October 26, 2026, held that statutory authorities exercising supervisory control over co-operative societies are fully empowered under Section 2(f) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 to access records from such societies to furnish information to an applicant, without requiring a pre-existing inquiry or prior subjective satisfaction.

A bench comprising Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod Chandran observed that the statutory definition of information extends beyond physical custody held by a public authority to encompass information relating to a private body that can be accessed under any law in force.

The dispute arose after Respondent No. 4, a member of the appellant Muppathadam Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd., filed an RTI application before the Joint Registrar (General) of Co-operative Societies seeking a copy of a building construction agreement entered into with a labour society and the minutes of the Bank's last General Body Meeting. Following multiple rounds of litigation, the State Information Commissioner, a Single Judge, and a Division Bench of the Kerala High Court consecutively affirmed the applicant's right to receive the documents. Aggrieved, the appellant-Bank approached the Supreme Court contending that it is not a public authority and that the Registrar could not access its records without first recording subjective satisfaction to hold an inquiry.

The primary question before the Court was whether the Registrar could invoke statutory powers under Sections 65 and 66 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969 to access records of a co-operative bank for disclosing information under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act absent a pending inquiry. The Court was also called upon to determine whether disclosure of the construction contract and general body minutes was barred under the commercial confidence or personal information exemptions under Section 8(1)(d) and Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.

Section 2(f) RTI Act Covers Information Statutorily Accessible From Private Bodies

The Supreme Court examined the ambit of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, emphasizing that the phrase "which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force" confers wide statutory entitlement. The Court reiterated that information is not restricted to material in the physical custody of a public department, but also extends to records of private entities over which the authority possesses statutory power to access.

Relying on the Constitution Bench ruling in Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court of India v. Subhash Chandra Agarwal, the bench noted that "under the control of any public authority" signifies dominion and the right or power to access material under any law.

"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," the Court observed.

Prior Satisfaction For Inquiry Not A Condition Precedent For Accessing Records

Rejecting the appellant's primary contention that the Registrar must first formulate a subjective satisfaction to initiate an inquiry under Section 65 before gaining access to records, the bench clarified that access to documents is logically anterior to forming any such satisfaction. The Court noted that Section 65(2) expressly enables the Registrar or an authorized officer to have free access to books, accounts, and records at all reasonable times.

The bench reasoned that an authority exercising suo motu powers or acting upon an application cannot enter upon a satisfaction regarding irregularities in a vacuum. Without examining the foundational documents maintained by the co-operative society, the Registrar would be disabled from deciding whether an inquiry is warranted at all.

"Access simpliciter, thus cannot be conditioned with a prior satisfaction, since without such access, the Registrar cannot enter upon a satisfaction," the bench ruled.

Section 66 Confers Independent And Continuous Supervisory Powers Of Inspection

The Court further held that Section 66 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act provides a distinct and self-contained route of access. Following statutory amendments introducing sub-sections (4A) and (11), the Registrar is armed with wide powers to inspect offices periodically and examine the books of the society as frequently as deemed necessary.

Consequently, the Registrar’s regulatory and supervisory dominion over registered societies furnishes adequate statutory authority to summon documents, fully satisfying the requirement of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act.

"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."

Commercial Confidence Exemption Inapplicable Once Tender Process Concludes

Addressing the appellant's reliance on Section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act, the Supreme Court held that the construction agreement did not contain any trade secrets, intellectual property, or commercial confidence that could injure the competitive position of a third party. The bench pointed out that the tender process had already culminated in the award of the contract to a labour society.

Once a contract is finalized and executed, the terms thereof cease to enjoy competitive confidentiality, especially vis-à-vis a member of the co-operative society who retains a legitimate stake in its administration and fiscal conduct.

Society Members Entitled To Records; Cannot Be Shielded As 'Personal Information'

The Court drew a crucial distinction between requests made by complete strangers and those submitted by members of a co-operative society when assessing Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. While acknowledging that an unconnected citizen cannot routinely probe the private affairs of an entity without demonstrating a nexus to public activity, the bench declared that a member stands on an entirely different footing.

The Court affirmed that neither the building contract nor the minutes of a General Body Meeting constitute personal information in relation to a member of the society.

"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," the judgment stated.

The Supreme Court affirmed that its earlier decision in Thalappalam Service Cooperative Bank Limited v. State of Kerala does not create an absolute bar against disclosing co-operative records, but instead preserves the Registrar's authority to access and supply non-exempt information under statutory powers. Dismissing the appeals, the Court directed the Joint Registrar to call for the two documents within two weeks and furnish copies to the applicant.

Date of Decision: October 26, 2026