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

Partition proceedings are vitiated even if single co-sharer is not made party or is not served in accordance with law

Cause Title :  Bhagwant Singh vs  Financial Commissioner (Appeals) Punjab, Chandigarh,  CWP-2132-2018 (O&M), High Court Of Punjab & Haryana At Chandigarh Date of Judgment/Order : 31.08.2022 Corum : Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sudhir Mittal Background A large parcel of land was owned by the Nagar Panchayat. Thereafter, some of the co-sharers sold their shares to third parties including the petitioners herein. On 22.11.1995, respondents No.3 to 5 filed an application for partition of the land. The petitioners were not impleaded as parties.  On completion of proceedings, sanad was issued on 28.08.1996. Vide two separate sale deeds dated 28.05.2008 respondents No.3 and 5 sold some portion in favour of respondent No.6 and 7. These respondents sought implementation of the sanad resulting in issuance of warrants of possession dated 05.06.2008. Allegedly, it was then that the petitioners realized that joint land had been partitioned and that proceedings h...

Power of Attorney holder can also file cheque bounce cases: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has held that a criminal complaint in a cheque bounce case can be filed and pursued by a person who holds a power of attorney (PoA) on behalf of the complainant. A three-judge bench headed by Chief Justice P Sathasivam gave the "authoritative" pronouncement on the issue, referred to it by a division bench in view of conflicting judgements of some high courts and the apex court. "We are of the view that the power of attorney holder may be allowed to file, appear and depose for the purpose of issue of process for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (which deals with cheque bounce cases)," the bench, also comprising justices Ranjana Prakash Desai and Ranjan Gogoi, said. The bench, in its judgement, said, "...we clarify the position and answer the questions in the following manner: "Filing of complaint petition under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act through PoA holder is perfectly legal...

Christian who reconverts as Hindu SC will get quota benefits

Amid the controversy over “ghar wapsi”, the Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that a person who “reconverts” from Christianity to Hinduism shall be entitled to reservation benefits if his forefathers belonged to a Scheduled Caste and the community accepts him after “reconversion”. Citing articles by B R Ambedkar and James Massey, and reports by Mandal Commission and Chinappa Commission, the court said: “There has been detailed study to indicate the Scheduled Caste persons belonging to Hindu religion, who had embraced Christianity with some kind of hope or aspiration, have remained socially, educationally and economically backward.” The bench of Justices Dipak Misra and V Gopala Gowda held that a person shall not be deprived of reservation benefits if he decides to “reconvert” to Hinduism and adopts the caste that his forefathers originally belonged to just because he was born to Christian parents or has a Christian spouse. Expanding the scope of a previous Constitution benc...