RTI Act applies to Cochin International Airport: Kerala High Court

The Kerala High Court has held that the Cochin International Airport Limited (CIAL) is a ‘public authority’ under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) and that it is, therefore, obliged to disclose information to parties who approach it with RTI applications [M/S Cochin International Airport Limited v. The State Information Commission & Anr. and connected cases].

The Division Bench of Justices SA Dharmadhikari and Syam Kumar VM passed the judgment, upholding earlier rulings by a single judge of the Court as well as the State Information Commission (SIC).

"It is held that CIAL is a 'public authority' under Sec. 2(h)(d)(i) of the RTI Act. The view taken by SIC in the impugned order dated 20.06.2019 is affirmed, holding that CIAL is bound to divulge necessary information and meet the statutory obligations placed upon its shoulders vide the various provisions of the RTI Act, including the appointment of PIO and divulging of necessary information in the said regard," the High Court's judgment reads.

The Court directed CIAL to take all necessary steps to become completely compliant with the RTI Act within 15 days and file a compliance report before the Court.

The Court also noted that the appeals before it were filed by the Managing Director of CIAL without the approval of the CIAL Board of Directors. Even the Chief Minister, who is the Chairman, was not consulted before filing the plea.

Deprecating the move, the Court directed the Chief Secretary to the government of Kerala, who is also a member of the Board, to take action against the Managing Director.

To curb such actions in the future, the Court deemed it fit to impose costs of ₹1 lakh on CIAL, to be deposited with the Kerala High Court Advocates' Association.

In its appeals, CIAL had primarily contended that it was not ‘owned’, ‘controlled’, or ‘substantially financed’ by an agency of the government to be considered a public authority under Section 2(h)(d)(i) of the RTI Act.

CIAL argued that it is not a body established through a Government Order (GO) but was incorporated under the erstwhile Companies Act, and as such, cannot be presumed to be a 'public authority' under the RTI Act.

The Court rejected this contention, noting that CIAL was preceded by the Kochi International Airport Society (KIAS), which came into existence by virtue of a GO. Since CIAL had effectively borrowed all the assets, land base, capital, and other funds, the Court concluded that CIAL too came into existence by virtue of the same GO.

The Court also observed that the 'ownership' contemplated under Section 2(h)(d) need not be complete or absolute ownership, it can be partial ownership as well. In this case, the presence of government functionaries in the Board of Directors of CIAL gave it the character of a government body.

"There are 6 members out of the total strength of 11 directors on the BOD of CIAL. Out of these 6 members are ex-officio government nominees. Therefore the government holds a clear mandate of majority thereby controlling the affairs and management of CIAL," the Court explained.

The Court added that the presence of the Chief Minister and cabinet ministers in the Board practically ensures that the other directors yield to their views.

"The group of private Directors is bound as a norm (barring certain exceptional contingencies) to tow the line of the Chief Minister, who vide Article 118(1) of the AoA holds the apex position of being the chairman of the whole company. The control therefore of GOK is not nominal, supervisory or merely regulatory in nature over CIAL, but complete and total in its effect and impact, in the day to day functioning and decision making of CIAL", the Court said.

Considering the amount of financial aid received by CIAL even before its incorporation, the Court held that KIAS, and later CIAL, had been ‘substantially financed’ by the State and Central governments and their instrumentalities.

"Therefore, all the limbs of being a ‘public authority’ are duly satisfied and we must hold that CIAL is a ‘public authority’ amenable to disseminate information under the provisions and rigours of RTI Act," the Court concluded.

CIAL was represented by Senior Advocate S Sreekumar and advocate S Harikrishnan.

Advocates M Ajay and Paul Jacob appeared for the respondents.

[Read Judgment]