Quick answer: A member of a Kerala co-operative bank can obtain the bank’s construction agreement and general body meeting minutes through the Registrar under the Right to Information Act, 2005, the Supreme Court held. The bank need not itself be a public authority: Section 2(f) also covers private-body information that a public authority can access under another law, subject to applicable exemptions.
In The Muppathadam Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd. v. The State Chief Information Commissioner & Ors. (2026 INSC 1153), decided on 26 October 2026, the Court explained the relationship between the RTI Act and the Registrar’s powers under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969. The answer depended on who sought the records, what records were requested, and whether the Registrar could obtain them lawfully.
Case at a glance: Civil Appeal Nos. 13906–13907 of 2026; Bench: Justices J.B. Pardiwala and K. Vinod Chandran. Read the official Supreme Court judgment.
What information did the bank member request?
The applicant was a member of Muppathadam Service Co-Operative Bank. He applied to the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies for two documents: the agreement under which a labour co-operative society was engaged to construct a bank building, and the minutes of the bank’s last general body meeting.
The dispute went through the information authorities and the Kerala High Court. On the second round, disclosure was upheld. The bank appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that it was a private co-operative body rather than a “public authority” under the RTI Act. It also contended that the Registrar could reach its documents under Section 65 of the Kerala Act only after deciding to open an inquiry.
Does a co-operative bank have to be a public authority for these records to be obtained?
No, that was not the route used here. Section 2(h) of the RTI Act defines “public authority”, but Section 2(f) includes information about a private body that a public authority can access under another law. The relevant public authority was the Registrar. The question was whether the Kerala Act gave that office lawful access to the bank’s records.
| Legal question | Supreme Court’s answer in this case |
|---|---|
| Was the bank treated as a public authority merely because it is regulated? | No such finding was needed. The request was made through the Registrar. |
| Must the Registrar already physically possess the documents? | No. A statutory power to obtain them can bring the information within Section 2(f). |
| Must an inquiry already be underway under Section 65? | No. The Registrar can inspect records to decide whether an inquiry is warranted. |
| Does the route override RTI exemptions? | No. Exemptions still have to be considered in relation to the requested material and the applicant. |
Key distinction: A request directed to a co-operative bank as if it were automatically subject to RTI is different from asking a public authority for records it has a legal power to obtain from that bank.
Why could the Registrar access the documents before an inquiry?
Section 65(2) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act provides access to a society’s books and documents at reasonable times. The Supreme Court rejected the bank’s argument that access begins only after a formal decision to inquire. The Registrar may need to examine material first to decide whether an inquiry is necessary. Section 66 also gives the Registrar supervisory and inspection powers over society records.
This did not create a general power to demand every private document without limits. The judgment applied the Registrar’s statutory powers to the two records sought in this dispute and then considered the bank’s claimed RTI exemptions.
Could the bank withhold the agreement or minutes as confidential or personal information?
The bank relied on Section 8(1)(d), concerning commercial confidence, trade secrets and similar material, and Section 8(1)(j), concerning personal information. The Court found neither objection persuasive for these documents requested by this member.
The construction contract had already been awarded. The Court did not find that disclosing its terms would reveal a trade secret or harm a competitive position. The general body minutes and building agreement were records in which a bank member had a direct interest. The Court held that the bank could not refuse this member by describing the records as personal to the society or unrelated to public activity.
The Court expressly drew a boundary: an unconnected third party making the same request could stand differently under the personal-information exemption. The decision should therefore not be read as granting every citizen unrestricted access to every co-operative society record. It also distinguished information about members’ bank deposits, which was protected in the earlier Thalappalam litigation.
What did the Supreme Court finally direct?
The Supreme Court dismissed the bank’s appeals and left the Kerala High Court’s decision in place. It directed the Joint Registrar to call for the construction agreement and the last general body meeting minutes within two weeks and give them to the applicant member.
The ruling is useful for RTI applicants and co-operative societies because it keeps two inquiries separate: whether the institution itself falls within Section 2(h), and whether a public authority can access specific information about it under Section 2(f). The scope of disclosure still depends on the governing statute and the RTI exemptions.
Key takeaways
- A co-operative bank’s private status does not by itself end an RTI request made through a competent public authority.
- Section 2(f) includes private-body records that the authority can lawfully obtain under another statute.
- Under the Kerala Act, the Registrar’s access to records was not conditional on an inquiry already being opened.
- The applicant’s membership and the nature of the two requested documents mattered when the Court assessed the claimed exemptions.
Frequently asked questions
Is every co-operative bank a public authority under the RTI Act?
The Court did not say so. It upheld access to these records through the Registrar’s powers, without requiring the bank itself to qualify under Section 2(h).
What is the difference between Sections 2(f) and 2(h) of the RTI Act?
Section 2(h) identifies public authorities. Section 2(f) defines information and extends to private-body information a public authority can access under another law.
Can the Registrar inspect records before ordering an inquiry?
In this case, yes. The Court reasoned that access to the society’s documents can be needed to decide whether an inquiry should begin under the Kerala Act.
Can any stranger obtain the same bank records through RTI?
The judgment does not establish that. It says an unconnected third party’s request may be treated differently under the personal-information exemption.
Which records had to be supplied here?
The bank’s building construction agreement with the labour co-operative society and the minutes of its last general body meeting.
When were the records to be supplied?
The Joint Registrar was directed to obtain and provide both documents within two weeks of the 26 October 2026 judgment.
