Translate:

Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

--- important-decisions:thalappalam-coop-vs-state-of-kerala [2023/04/15 11:54] – Shrawan
+++ important-decisions:thalappalam-coop-vs-state-of-kerala [2026/04/19 07:40] (current) – external edit 127.0.0.1
@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 ====== 	Supreme Court- Thalappalam Coop. Vs State of Kerala ======
-{{like>}}{{tag>Supreme Court, Cooperative Housing Society}}
+<WRAP center round info 95%>
+**In plain English**
+The question before the Supreme Court was whether a cooperative society registered under the Kerala Cooperative Societies Act is a "public authority" under Section 2(h) of the Right to Information Act and must therefore disclose its records when an applicant files a request.
+The Court held that a cooperative society does not become a public authority merely because it is registered under a State cooperative law or supervised by a State Registrar. To qualify as a public authority, the body must satisfy one of the tests in Section 2(h). The body must be formed under the Constitution, by a law of Parliament or a State Legislature, or by a notification of the appropriate Government. In the alternative, the body must be owned, controlled, or substantially financed by the appropriate Government. Mere regulatory oversight is not enough. Ownership or control in the substantive sense is required.
+**What it means for you.** Not every registered body is covered by the Right to Information Act. If you are applying to a cooperative society, a registered trust, a non-governmental organisation, or a private body, you first have to establish that it meets the Section 2(h) test. If it does not, the Act does not give you a right of access to its records.
+**Current status.** The holding on the test for "public authority" under Section 2(h) remains good law. The 14 November 2025 amendment to Section 8(1)(j) does not affect the holding.
+</WRAP>
+{{tag>supreme court cooperative housing society}}
 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
@@ Line 352: / Line 365: @@
 [<>]
+----
+===== Status as of 19 April 2026 =====
+Remains good law on the test for "public authority" under Section 2(h). The three limbs are the body's formation under the Constitution, law, or a notification of the appropriate Government, and the question of ownership, control, or substantial financing by the appropriate Government under clauses (d)(i) and (d)(ii) of Section 2(h). The amendment to Section 8(1)(j) by Section 44(3) of the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 does not affect the holding on the definition of a public authority.
+===== Sections engaged =====
+  * Section 2(h). Definition of "public authority", including clauses (d)(i) and (d)(ii) on substantial financing.
+  * Section 8(1)(j). Personal information exemption, discussed in paragraph 53.
+===== Citation =====
+Thalappalam Service Cooperative Bank Ltd. and Ors. v. State of Kerala and Ors., (2013) 16 SCC 82. Decided on 7 October 2013 by the Supreme Court of India. Bench: K. S. Radhakrishnan and A. K. Sikri, JJ.
+===== Sources =====
+  - Supreme Court of India, judgment dated 7 October 2013.
+  - The Right to Information Act, 2005, Section 2(h).
+===== Last reviewed on =====
+April 2026
+{{tag>rti case-law supreme-court section-2h public-authority}}

Was this page helpful?