The Supreme Court of India has dismissed appeals filed by Muppathadam Service Co-operative Bank Ltd., holding that a member of the bank can obtain specified records through the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005, when a public authority has the statutory power to access those documents. The Court upheld the Kerala High Court Division Bench judgment and directed the competent authority to provide the requested records within two weeks.
A Bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod Chandran delivered the judgment on October 26, 2026.
Background
The dispute arose from an RTI application filed by a member of the co-operative bank seeking two documents: the construction agreement between the bank and a Labour Co-operative Society, and the minutes of the bank’s last General Body Meeting.
The member’s request was initially rejected by the authorities, including the State Chief Information Commissioner. After successive rounds of litigation, the Kerala High Court Division Bench upheld his entitlement to the documents.
The bank challenged that decision before the Supreme Court, arguing that it was not a public authority under the RTI Act. It further contended that the Registrar could access its records under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act only after satisfying the statutory requirements for initiating an inquiry.
The Supreme Court examined Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, which includes information relating to a private body that a public authority can access under another law. The Court explained that information need not already be physically held by a public authority if the authority has the legal power to obtain it.
Rejecting the bank’s argument that prior satisfaction to initiate an inquiry was necessary before accessing the records, the Court observed:
“Access simpliciter, thus cannot be conditioned with a prior satisfaction, since without such access, the Registrar cannot enter upon a satisfaction.”
The Court also considered the exemptions under Sections 8(1)(d) and 8(1)(j), concerning commercial confidence and personal information. It found that the requested construction agreement and General Body Meeting minutes did not fall within those exemptions in the circumstances of this case.
The Bench clarified that the position could differ if an unrelated third party sought the same information. However, the applicant was a member of the bank, and the documents concerned the institution of which he was a member.
The Supreme Court found no reason to interfere with the High Court Division Bench’s judgment. It directed the Joint Registrar (General) of the Co-operative Societies to obtain both documents and supply them to the applicant within two weeks.
The Court accordingly dismissed the appeals.
