By Binay Kumar, Advocate-on-Record, Supreme Court of India; Managing Partner, The Justice Law Partners.
Case: The Muppathadam Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. State Chief Information Commissioner & Others
Decision: 26 October 2026
Case No.: Civil Appeal Nos. 13906–13907/2026
Neutral citation: 2026 INSC 1153
Bench: J. B. Pardiwala and K. Vinod Chandran, JJ.
Judgment authored by: K. Vinod Chandran, J.
Reportability: Reportable
Relevant paragraphs: 11–17
The request
A member sought the bank’s construction agreement and minutes of a general-body meeting through the statutory RTI machinery. The bank contended that, being a co-operative institution outside the definition of public authority, its internal documents were not accessible in that manner.
Access through a public authority
Section 2(f) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 includes information about a private body that a public authority can access under another law. The Court examined the Registrar’s powers under Sections 65 and 66 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969 and held that access to documents was not necessarily conditional upon a pre-existing formal inquiry.
Exemptions and the applicant’s position
The requested documents were not withheld on the asserted commercial-confidence or personal-information grounds. The Court expressly differentiated the position of a member seeking records connected to the institution from that of an unrelated stranger. The ruling does not make all co-operative societies public authorities or all their information accessible to everyone.
Order and significance
The appeals were dismissed and the Registrar was directed to obtain the documents and supply them to the member within two weeks. The case illustrates how Section 2(f) operates alongside powers conferred by another statute. A future application will still depend on the governing law, requested information, and applicable exemptions.
Judgment and editorial note
Supreme Court official judgment entry. This case note is an explanatory summary of the decision and is not legal advice. The operative judgment governs in the event of any discrepancy.