Madras HC declares TANFED a public authority under RTI act; orders transparency in fertiliser procurement

CHENNAI: In a significant ruling on transparency in cooperative institutions, the Madras High Court has held that the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Marketing Federation Limited (TANFED) was a public authority under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005. The court ruled that the State government exercised control over the federation, making it subject to public scrutiny.

Justice V Lakshminarayanan, in a recent order, quashed a decision of the State Information Commission (SIC) that had earlier held TANFED to be outside the purview of the RTI Act.

The case arose from a petition filed by farmer P Jothibasu, who had sought 11 categories of information relating to TANFED’s fertiliser procurement, including details of suppliers, tender processes, pricing mechanisms and quality testing from April 2021. He said that he sought information after allegedly purchasing fertiliser that “did not dissolve and appeared like mud”, raising concerns over the quality of products supplied through cooperatives.

His queries also sought details on whether suppliers complied with certification norms under the Fertilizer Control Order. After his RTI request was rejected in May 2023 on the grounds that TANFED is not a public authority under Section 2 (h) of the Act, he pursued statutory appeals before approaching the SIC and later the HC.

TANFED argued that it was an autonomous cooperative body exempt from the RTI Act, relying on precedents including the Supreme Court’s 2013 ruling in the Thalappalam case and a 2024 Madras High Court ruling involving a primary agricultural cooperative society.

However, the court rejected the application of these precedents, describing TANFED’s attempt to equate a primary society with an apex body. The court noted that TANFED served as an implementing arm of the State government, acting as a nodal agent for national agricultural schemes and managing the distribution of essential commodities.

The court also noted that TANFED functioned as an implementing arm of the State government, including acting as a nodal agency for agricultural schemes, and that its audit reports were placed before the State Legislative Assembly. It also took note of a 2007 GO mandating the appointment of Public Information Officers in TANFED, observing that the State itself had recognised the federation’s obligations under the RTI framework.

Setting aside the Information Commission’s order, the court directed TANFED’s Public Information Officer to furnish the requested information within four weeks.