Skip to main content

The Supreme Court of India Ruled That Co-Operative Societies Do Not Fall Within the Ambit of RTI

The Supreme Court of India on 15 October 2013 ruled that co-operative societies do not fall within the ambit of Right to Information (RTI).

While ruling the judgment a bench of justice KS Radhakrishnan and justice AK Sikri told that mere supervision or regulation of a body by government would not make that body a public authority.

Observations of the Supreme Court of India
• Societies are of course subject to the control of the statutory authorities like Registrar, Joint Registrar and the Government. But cannot be said that the state exercises any direct or indirect control over the affairs of the society which is deep and all pervasive.
• Supervisory or general regulation under the statute over the co-operative societies, which are body corporate, does not render activities of the body so regulated as subject to such control of the State so as to bring it within the meaning of the State or instrumentality of the State.
• The mere supervision or regulation as such by a statute or otherwise of a body would not make that body a public authority within the meaning of Section 2(h)(d)(i) Right to Information Act. In other words just like a body owned or body substantially financed by the appropriate government, the control of the body by the appropriate government would also be substantial and not merely supervisory or regulatory.

The ruling was given by the Supreme Court of India while quashing a circular by Kerala government.

According to the Kerala government circular to the Registrar of Co-operative Societies in May 2006  all institutions formed by laws made by State Legislature is a public authority and therefore, all co-operative institutions coming under the administrative control of the Registrar of Co-operative Societies are also public authorities.

About Cooperative societies
•Cooperative Societies is a state subject under entry 32 state list of the Seventh schedule of the Indian Constitution.
• According to the Constitutional (97th Amendment) Act, 2011 forming a Cooperative Society is a fundamental right under article 19(1)(i).
• Constitutional (97th Amendment) Act, 2011 added the words “or co-operative societies” after the word “or unions” in Article 19(l)(i) and insertion of article 43B i.e., Promotion of Co-operative Societies and added Part-IXB i.e., The Co-operative Societies.

About right to information act, 2005
It is an act to provide for setting out the practical regime of right to information for citizens to secure access to information under the control of public authorities, in order to promote transparency and accountability in the working of every public authority.

According to the Section 2(h) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 Public authority means any authority or body or institution of self-government established or constituted-
(a) by or under the Constitution
(b) by any other law made by Parliament
(c) by any other law made by State Legislature
(d) by notification issued or order made by the appropriate Government, and includes any—
i. Body owned, controlled or substantially financed
ii. Non-Government organisation substantially financed, directly or indirectly by funds provided by the appropriate Government.
iii. Non Government organisation substantially financed, directly or indirectly by funds provided by the appropriate Government.

Article referred: http://www.jagranjosh.com/current-affairs/the-supreme-court-of-india-ruled-that-cooperative-societies-do-not-fall-within-the-ambit-of-rti-1381837117-1

Comments

Most viewed this month

Amendment of plaint under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC explained

Cause Title :  Ganesh Prasad vs Rajeshwar Prasad, SLP (C) NO. 28377 OF 2018, Supreme Court Of India Date of Judgment/Order : 14/3/2023 Corum : J. B. Pardiwala, J. Citied:  Revajeetu Builders and Developers v. Narayanaswamy & Sons and Others reported in (2009) 10 SCC 84 North Eastern Railway Administration, Gorakhpur v. Bhagwan Das reported in (2008) 8 SCC 511 P.A. Jayalakshmi v. H. Saradha and Others reported in (2009) 14 SCC 525 B.K. Narayana Pillai v. Parameswaran Pillai and Another reported in (2000) 1 SCC 712 A.K. Gupta and Sons Ltd. v. Damodar Valley Corporation reported in AIR 1967 SC 96 Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Sanjeev Builders Private Limited and Another, Civil Appeal No. 5909 of 2022 dated 01.09.2022 Firm Sriniwas Ram Kumar v. Mahabir Prasad and Others reported in AIR 1951 SC 177 G. Nagamma and Another v. Siromanamma and Another reported in (1996) 2 SCC 25 Praful Manohar Rele v. Krishnabai Narayan Ghosalkar and Others reported in (2014...

Owner of vehicle is not expected to verify the genuineness of the driving license before appointing a driver

Cause Title : Rishi Pal Singh Versus New India Assurance Co. Ltd & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 4919 Of 2022, The Supreme Court Of India Date of Judgment/Order : July 26, 2022 Corum : Hemant Gupta; J., Vikram Nath; J. Background the truck owned by the appellant met with an accident. The owner deposed before the court that before employing the driver, he had taken his driving test and that he was driving the vehicle satisfactorily and  that the driver was employed with him for 3 years before the date of the accident. He produced his driving license. This was reaffirmed by the driver who deposed that the driving license was obtained from the driver and it was issued from Nagaland, but no such license was produced on record. Both the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and the High Court have held that the owner has alleged that the driver had a driving license from Nagaland but the same was not produced and therefore, the Insurance Company is entitled to recover the awarded amount...

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...