Can a member file an RTI application against the society? Supreme Court in Thalappalam, decoded

A member asks for the last audited balance sheet, the committee minutes and the list of members. The secretary goes quiet, the chairman calls the records confidential, and someone in the society WhatsApp group says the member should just file an RTI application against the society. It sounds firm and official. For a Maharashtra housing society it is usually the wrong door, and the Supreme Court explained why in Thalappalam Ser. Coop. Bank Ltd. v. State of Kerala.

The case in brief

In Kerala, a State Government letter of 5 May 2006 and Circular No. 23/2006 of the Registrar of Co-operative Societies, dated 1 June 2006, declared every co-operative institution under the Registrar's administrative control a public authority under the RTI Act 2005. In the Mulloor Rural Co-operative Society matter, an applicant sought particulars of the bank accounts of certain members. The society refused, and the Kerala State Information Commission held on 16 January 2008 that it had violated section 7(1) and was liable under section 20. A Full Bench of the Kerala High Court (AIR 2012 Ker 124) upheld the wider view and the Circular, and the societies appealed. A bench of K.S. Radhakrishnan and A.K. Sikri JJ decided the appeals together on 7 October 2013, in Civil Appeal No. 9017 of 2013, (2013) 16 SCC 82.

What the court decided

The Court confined itself, at paragraph 12, to societies that are not owned, controlled or substantially financed by the State or Central Government, and not created by a law of Parliament or a State Legislature.

For such societies it held that they are bodies corporate, not statutory bodies, and that supervision or general regulation under the co-operative statute does not make them the State or an instrumentality of the State (paragraphs 15 and 17). A body that is not the State may still be a public authority under section 2(h) of the RTI Act (paragraph 18), so the Court applied that section and held that its categories exhaust themselves and cannot be widened by liberal construction (paragraphs 27, 28 and 43). Government control must be of a substantial nature, and the Registrar's powers are regulatory or supervisory, not domination of management (paragraph 34). Substantial financing must be actual and real; subsidies, grants and exemptions are not enough unless the body would struggle to exist without the money (paragraphs 36 to 38).

The operative paragraph 54 says societies registered under the Kerala Act do not fall within section 2(h) "in the absence of materials to show that they are owned, controlled or substantially financed by the appropriate Government". The Government letter and the Circular were quashed to that extent.

The Court also said the Registrar is himself a public authority, and must furnish the information he already holds or can lawfully gather from a society under the co-operative statute — only that much is 'held' by him — and even then not if section 8(1)(j) applies (paragraph 52), and that privacy under Article 21 and section 8(1)(j) limits disclosure of personal information (paragraphs 46 to 53).

Why it matters for your society

Two things follow. First, the Court refused to treat a co-operative society as a public authority just because a statute regulates it. A member who files an RTI application against the society itself is therefore on uncertain ground.

Second, the judgment does not leave members without rights. It only says the RTI Act is not where they come from. In Maharashtra they come from the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act 1960 and the 2014 Model Bye-laws. Bye-law 23(a) gives a member the right to inspect books, registers and documents free of cost under section 32(1) of the Act, and to get copies under section 32(2) on payment of the fees in bye-law 171. Bye-law 171 fixes the price: for example ₹10 per page for the last audited balance sheet, the list of members and the minutes of general body and committee meetings, and ₹5 per page for certified bye-laws and for any other document under section 32. If the committee stonewalls, bye-law 174(a)(viii) makes non-supply of copies of records and documents a ground of complaint to the Registrar.

What your committee should do

1. 1Treat a written request for records as a bye-law 23 request, whatever label the member uses, and answer it in writing. A member who hears nothing within 15 days may approach the competent authority under bye-law 174.
2. 2Allow inspection free of cost at the society's premises, where bye-law 123 requires the records to be kept.
3. 3Supply copies on payment of the bye-law 171 fee, and no more.
4. 4Keep the records complete: the books and registers under bye-law 141, the files under bye-law 142, and the Secretary's duty to keep them up to date under bye-law 143. Tampering, incomplete records and unprepared annual accounts are separate complaint grounds under bye-law 174(a)(ix), (xi) and (xii).
5. 5Never send a member away with "file an RTI". It does not discharge the duty under bye-law 23.
6. 6If you doubt whether a document falls within section 32, take written legal advice before refusing.

Limits of this ruling

• •Paragraph 54 speaks of societies registered under the Kerala Act. The Court interprets the RTI Act generally but does not decide the position under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act 1960.
• •The finding is a finding on facts, reached in the absence of materials. A particular society can be shown to be owned, controlled or substantially financed by the Government, and the State Information Commission can decide that dispute on the test the Court laid down (paragraphs 40, 41 and 51), the burden being on the applicant who seeks the information.
• •No numerical threshold for substantial financing was fixed; the 95% grant-in-aid example at paragraph 38 is only an illustration.
• •Because the societies were held not to be public authorities, no section 8(1)(j) claim against them was decided; the Court applied section 8(1)(j) only to what the Registrar may disclose (paragraph 53).
• •It is a 2013 decision and does not cover later statutory or case-law developments.
• •The 2026 Amendment Rules add Chapter XI-B (Rules 106C-1 to 106C-14) for housing societies, but our datasets show nothing in it on a member's right to inspect records, to obtain copies of them, or to information, so the bye-law 23 and section 32 route appears unchanged.