“CIAL is a ‘Public Authority’ under the RTI Act”: Kerala High Court Dismisses Appeals and Directs Full RTI Compliance within 15 Days
Safiya Malik
The High Court of Kerala Division Bench of Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Justice Syam Kumar V.M. held that Cochin International Airport Limited (CIAL) qualifies as a “public authority” under Section 2(h)(d)(i) of the Right to Information Act, 2005. The Court dismissed the writ appeals filed by CIAL challenging the earlier judgment that upheld the State Information Commission’s orders directing disclosure of information under the RTI Act. It further directed CIAL to ensure full compliance with RTI provisions within 15 days, including the appointment of Public Information Officers and timely furnishing of information.
The case emerged from multiple RTI applications filed by private individuals seeking various categories of information from Cochin International Airport Limited (CIAL). These applications were initially denied by CIAL on the ground that it was not a “public authority” within the meaning of Section 2(h) of the RTI Act, 2005.
Aggrieved applicants approached the Kerala State Information Commission, which, by order dated 26 July 2010, held that CIAL is a public authority under Section 2(h)(d)(i) and directed it to disclose the information sought. CIAL challenged this order before the Kerala High Court through writ petitions, resulting in a remand to the Commission for fresh consideration.
On reconsideration, the Commission reaffirmed its earlier findings in an order dated 20 June 2019, reiterating that CIAL fell within the definition of a public authority. Aggrieved by the Commission’s decision, CIAL filed a batch of writ petitions before the Single Judge of the High Court, challenging the applicability of the RTI Act to it.
The Single Judge, through judgment dated 2 December 2022, dismissed the writ petitions, holding that CIAL is a public authority within the meaning of Section 2(h)(d)(i) of the RTI Act and is bound to comply with its provisions.
Dissatisfied, CIAL filed the present batch of writ appeals before the Division Bench of the Kerala High Court, contending that it did not satisfy the tests of ownership, control, or substantial financing by the government required to constitute a public authority under the RTI Act. It argued that as a public limited company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, it operates as an autonomous commercial enterprise and the government’s shareholding of 34.96% was insufficient to render it a public authority.
The appellant submitted that the Board of Directors, comprising nominees from various shareholder categories including private individuals and financial institutions, independently manages the affairs of the company. Further, CIAL contended that the government’s role was limited to shareholder rights and did not amount to control or ownership envisaged by Section 2(h) of the RTI Act.
The respondents, including the RTI applicants and the State Information Commission, countered that CIAL was originally formed as a successor to the Kochi International Airport Society (KIAS), a society created by the Government of Kerala through a government order dated 19 May 1993. The Society was dissolved upon incorporation of CIAL, with all its assets, including land acquired by the government, transferred to the company.
The respondents emphasized that CIAL’s infrastructure, financial foundation, and management structure reflected significant state involvement. They pointed out that government officers, including the Chief Minister, Minister for Transport, Chief Secretary, and District Collector, are members of CIAL’s Board of Directors by virtue of Articles 95, 125, and related provisions of its Articles of Association.
It was further submitted that the government and its instrumentalities, including public sector undertakings and nationalized banks, cumulatively held a significant proportion of shares exceeding 45%, including financial grants, loans guaranteed by the state, and other assistance. This, the respondents argued, amounted to substantial financing and control within the meaning of Section 2(h) of the RTI Act.
The respondents also relied on official records, government notifications, and publications by CIAL acknowledging the state’s pivotal role in its creation, management, and development. They urged the Court to uphold the State Information Commission’s orders and affirm CIAL’s status as a public authority to ensure transparency and accountability.
The Division Bench examined the legal provisions of Section 2(h)(d)(i) of the RTI Act, which defines “public authority” to include any body “owned, controlled, or substantially financed” by the government.
The Court reviewed the historical and structural facts regarding CIAL’s incorporation and ownership: “CIAL is the successor of the Kochi International Airport Society (KIAS), constituted by the Government of Kerala through G.O. (Ms) No.42/93/PW&T dated 19.05.1993, which included the Chief Minister and Minister for Transport as members.”
The Court emphasized the significance of this origin, noting that all assets and liabilities of KIAS, including land and infrastructure acquired through government action, were transferred to CIAL upon incorporation.
Turning to the issue of ownership and financing, the Court stated: “The Government of Kerala’s shareholding in CIAL stood at 34.96%. However, when combined with shares held by public sector undertakings, nationalized banks, and other government-controlled entities, the aggregate government-related shareholding exceeds 45%.”
The Court further highlighted:“Substantial public funds were deployed in the form of grants, loans backed by sovereign guarantees, and other assistance for the airport’s construction and operation.”
Examining the dimension of control, the Bench observed: “Articles 95, 125, and 185 of CIAL’s Articles of Association mandate the inclusion of government nominees on the Board of Directors, including the Chief Minister, Minister for Transport, and Chief Secretary. The Managing Director is also a government nominee.”
The Court recorded:“This structural arrangement and the government’s significant role in financial and administrative decisions manifest substantial control over CIAL’s functioning.”
Rejecting the appellants’ argument of commercial autonomy, the Court stated: “Even if the company operates profitably and pays dividends, this does not negate the fact of substantial government financing and control as envisaged under the RTI Act.”
“Transparency and accountability are the cornerstones of the RTI Act and are necessary to ensure public scrutiny over entities substantially supported by the State.”
The Court referred to judicial precedents emphasizing the broad scope of the RTI Act in promoting openness in governance.
It concluded:“CIAL falls squarely within the definition of a ‘public authority’ under Section 2(h)(d)(i) of the RTI Act and is obligated to comply with all valid requests for information under the Act.”
The Court dismissed the writ appeals filed by CIAL as devoid of merit. It affirmed the judgment dated 2 December 2022 passed by the learned Single Judge, upholding the State Information Commission’s orders.
The Court directed that: “CIAL shall take all necessary steps within 15 days from the date of this judgment to ensure full compliance with the provisions of the RTI Act, including but not limited to the appointment of Public Information Officers and the disclosure of information as mandated.”
The Court observed that the Managing Director had filed the writ petitions and appeals without prior approval from the Board of Directors and directed: “The Chief Secretary of Kerala, who is a member of the Board of Directors of CIAL, is directed to take appropriate action to prevent such unauthorized filings in the future and to file a compliance report before this Court within 15 days.”
The Registry was directed to communicate a copy of the judgment to the Chief Secretary immediately.
The Court clarified: “We have not expressed any opinion on the merits of individual RTI applications or the applicability of exemptions under Sections 8 and 9 of the RTI Act, which shall be adjudicated by the competent authorities under the Act.”
Finally, the Court imposed costs on CIAL: “A cost of Rs. 1,00,000 (One Lakh Rupees) is imposed on CIAL, payable to the Kerala High Court Advocates’ Association within ten days.”
The Court ordered that the writ appeals stand dismissed, with all interlocutory applications closed, and scheduled the matter for compliance reporting after 15 days from the judgment date.
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Sri. S. Sreekumar (Senior Advocate), Sri. Harikrishnan S.
For the Respondents: Shri. M. Ajay (Standing Counsel, State Information Commission), Shri. P.K. Ibrahim, Sri. M. Abdul Rasheed, Sri. K.P. Prasanth, Smt. T.S. Krishnendu, Smt. Archana Suresh, Smt. Haritha Hariharan, Shri. P.S. Biju, and others
Case Title: M/S.COCHIN INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LIMITED .Vs. THE STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION & Anr.
Neutral Citation: 2025:KER:57823
Case Number: W.A. No. 45 of 2023
Bench: Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Justice Syam Kumar V.M.
