Judicial Interpretation of the RTI Act in the Context of Cooperative Societies

INTRODUCTION

In a very recent decision of P.R. Ramachandran v. State Chief Information Commissioner and Others by the Kerala High Court, it set a significant example in the context of judicial interpretation of the Right to Information Act, 2005(hereinafter referred to as “RTI act”), precisely with respect to the laws governing Co-operative societies in Kerala. This appeal arose from the dismissal of the writ petition filed by the appellant before the single learned judge of this Hon’ble Court. The appeal solely arose on the denial of information sought by the appellant under the RTI act related to the respondent, Muppathadam Service Cooperative Bank Ltd. The whole case before this Hon’ble Bench revolved around the interpretation of section 2(f) of the RTI Act, what constitutes information under the said section, and whether the cooperative bank is compelled to give such information through a public authority, such as the Registrar of Cooperative Societies. The Division Bench of the Kerala High Court, in giving out this decision, defined the scope and limitation of the RTI act in the context of cooperative societies relying on the precedents laid down by the Supreme Court. 

BRIEF FACTS

The appellant, herein, sought information from the State Public Information Officer concerning the respondent cooperative society. The appellant had sought a copy of the construction agreement between the cooperative bank and the construction agency and also sought the minutes of meeting of the cooperative bank's last general body meeting. The Public Information Officer informed the appellant that the sought information was unavailable with the Joint Registrar’s office. The appellant, dissatisfied, filed a first appeal under Section 19 of the RTI Act. The first appeal, not being rightly addressed, the appellant filed a second appeal, which the State Public Information Officer rejected on the grounds that the Public Information Officer is only obliged to provide information that is available or under the control of the public authority as per the RTI act. This compelled the appellant to file a writ petition before the Kerala High Court to set aside the rejection by the State Public Information Officer; however, the Single Judge Bench dismissed his writ petition, leading the appellant to file a writ appeal before a division bench. 

LEGAL ISSUES

• Whether the information sought by the appellant constitutes “information” under section 2(f) of the RTI Act?
• Whether the Registrar of Cooperative Societies fall under the ambit of “public authority” under the RTI Act?

ANALYSIS

It is important in the context of the decision to understand section 2(f) of the RTI Act which states that, “information means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force.”

The Division Bench of the High Court, while adjudicating on this matter, took an expansive view of the term “information” and emphasized the objective of the RTI act to promote transparency and accountability. The court held that the interpretation of the section must be made so as to align with the objectives of the Act. The Hon’ble Court referred to the decision of Thalappalam Service Cooperative Bank Ltd. v. State of Kerala, wherein the Supreme Court had clarified the relationship between the cooperative societies and the RTI act that the cooperative societies, being individual private entities registered under the Cooperative Societies Act do not fall under the purview of the RTI act as “public authorities.” The court pointed out that there is a stark difference between a body that is created by a statute and a body that, after coming into existence, is governed by a statute. A cooperative society, being the latter, does not necessarily constitute a public authority. Further, the High Court noted that information concerning such entities are readily accessible by the public authorities governing it and have statutory power to obtain it. 

The Kerala High Court, while deciding the matter at hand, has found that the information sought by the appellant, although with the private cooperative society, comes under the definition of ‘information’ under Section 2(f) on grounds the Registrar of Cooperative Societies has regulatory or supervisory powers over such societies. The Kerala Cooperative Societies Act empowers the Registrar to have physical access to some records and information that is relevant to the working of the societies. This regulation authority is not superficial in the sense that it carries supervisory and oversight abilities but also includes inspecting records and other inquiries concerning the affairs of the society with a view of ascertaining compliance with other statutory provisions.

Furthermore, in light of the second issue, the Division Bench took into consideration section 2(h) of the RTI act that defines public authority as “any authority or body or institution of self-government established or constituted by or under the Constitution, by any other law made by Parliament, by any other law made by State Legislature, by notification issued or made by the appropriate government.” The Kerala High Court, whilst interpreting the definition clearly affirmed that the Registrar of any Cooperative Society falls within the ambit of “public authority” under the RTI and is legally obliged to provide information under the said act. A registrar, being a statutory authority constituted under the Kerala Cooperative Societies Act, is entrusted with the role of supervising the operation of the cooperative societies. The role, so entrusted, includes functions such as registration, regulation, and supervision of such societies to ensure compliance with the provisions of the law. 

The Kerala High Court asserted that the powers vested in the Registrar through the Cooperative Societies Act are wide enough to categorize the Registrar as a public authority as per the RTI Act. The Kerala High Court took into consideration the decision laid down by the Supreme Court in CBSE v. Aditya Bandopadhyay, which held that “But where the information sought is not a part of the record of a public authority, and where such information is not required to be maintained under any law or the rules or regulations of the public authority, the Act does not cast an obligation upon the public authority to collect or collate such non-available information and then furnish it to an applicant. A public authority is also not required to furnish information which require drawing of inferences and/or making of assumptions.” However, the Kerala High Court rejected this view adopted by the Supreme Court and went on to rely on the Thalappalam case that a public authority, the registrar in the current case, must gather information to the extent that law permits, over matters which they have administrative or supervisory control over. 

The Kerala High Court held that by virtue of the status of the Registrar under the RTI Act, he is bound to supply information within the meaning of Section 2(f) that is either with the Registrar or obtainable from the records available under the Kerala Cooperative Societies Act. The Kerala High Court, in this case, reaffirmed that it was within the statutory mandate of the Registrar to produce information that is available to him and also held that the decision of the State Chief Information Commissioner, which rejected the appellant’s request on the grounds that the information sought was not with the Registrar, was bad in law.  

CONCLUSION

This decision of the Kerala High Court in “P.R. Ramachandran v. State Chief Information Commissioner and Others” serves to be a fundamental case in the context of the interpretation of the Right to Information Act, specifically with regard to cooperative societies. The Court pointed out that the definition of “information” under the RTI is broad and must be interpreted widely to ensure transparency and accountability in the functioning of the body. The Court by affirming that the registrar falls within the ambit of “public authority” under the RTI Act, reinforced the statutory duty of the registrar to furnish information that falls within its regulatory powers. This decision highlights the importance of transparency and accountability, which are the core principles upon which the RTI act is based. This decision not only broadens and clarifies the scope of the RTI Act but also strengthens the rights of the citizens to access information, which is crucial for the proper functioning and accountability of cooperative societies.