Shivaji Rathore 9-1-2026
In a significant ruling reinforcing transparency and accountability, the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh has categorically held that a cooperative housing society, substantially financed and controlled by the Government, falls within the definition of a “public authority” under the Right to Information law.
The judgment clarifies that cooperative societies cannot evade their statutory obligations under the RTI framework merely by claiming autonomous or non-governmental status.
Background of the Case
The case arose when J&K Cooperative Housing Corporation Ltd., a society registered under the Jammu and Kashmir Cooperative Societies Act, challenged an order passed by the State Information Commission. The Commission had directed the society to: Appoint a Public Information Officer (PIO)
,Constitute a First Appellate Authority Furnish information sought under the RTI Act The society contended that it was not a public authority and therefore not bound by the provisions of the Jammu and Kashmir Right to Information Act, 2009.
Legal Issue Before the Court
The central question before the Court was: Whether a cooperative housing society, substantially financed and controlled by the Government, qualifies as a “public authority” under Section 2(f) of the J&K RTI Act, 2009? Interpretation of “Public Authority” Under RTI Law Section 2(f) of the RTI Act defines public authority to include any body or institution which is:
Owned, Controlled, or Substantially financed, directly or indirectly, by Government funds. The Court emphasised that the word “includes” in the definition significantly widens the scope of public authorities, bringing within its ambit bodies that may not be strictly governmental but operate using public funds or under governmental control. Government Control and Substantial Financing Upon examining statutory provisions and factual records, the Court found that:
The Government held over 40% share capital in the petitioner society Government guarantees were provided for loans raised by the society Issuance of debentures required prior Government sanction
Registrar appointed by the Government exercised deep supervisory control, including audit and inspection The Court observed that “substantial finance” does not necessarily mean majority funding. Even a large portion of public money is sufficient to attract RTI obligations. This reasoning aligns with the Supreme Court’s interpretation that public funds must remain open to public scrutiny
Public Interest and Transparency
The judgment underlined the object of the RTI Act promoting informed citizenry, transparency, and probity in public life. The Court noted that when public funds are involved, citizens have a legitimate right to know: How such funds are utilised,
Whether the objectives for which the funding was granted are being achieved, Thus, cooperative societies dealing with public money cannot function behind a veil of secrecy.
Final Decision of the Court The High Court conclusively held that: “The petitioner society has been rightly held to be a ‘public authority’ under the J&K Right to Information Act, 2009.” The writ petition was dismissed, and the order of the State Information Commission was upheld. The society was directed to comply with all obligations under the RTI Act, including disclosure of information.
Legal Significance of the Judgment
This ruling is crucial because it: Expands RTI applicability to cooperative institutions Reinforces accountability of bodies using public funds Prevents misuse of cooperative structures to avoid transparency Strengthens citizens’ right to information The decision will have a far-reaching impact on cooperative societies, housing federations, and similar bodies across the region.
Conclusion
The judgment serves as a strong reminder that public money carries public accountability. Any institution substantially financed or controlled by the Government, regardless of its nomenclature, must adhere to the transparency mandate of RTI laws.
This ruling marks another step forward in strengthening democratic governance and public oversight.
