The Kerala High Court declared Cochin International Airport Ltd. (CIAL) to be a “public authority” under Section 2(h)(d)(i) of the Right to Information Act, 2005, thereby affirming its obligation to provide information under the RTI regime.
A Division Bench comprising Justices Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Syam Kumar V.M. dismissed a batch of writ appeals filed by CIAL challenging orders of the State Information Commission (SIC) and a Single Bench judgment that had directed CIAL to disclose information under RTI.
The Court, after a thorough analysis of the historical and structural background of CIAL, found that:
• CIAL originated from a government-established body (KIAS),
• Received substantial funding from the Government of Kerala and other public sources (over 45% of equity),
• Operated with board-level dominance by government nominees (including the Chief Minister and Chief Secretary), and
• Was backed by sovereign guarantees and land acquisition through the State.
These factors, the Court held, placed CIAL squarely within the ambit of a “public authority” under the RTI Act, particularly in view of the statute’s purpose of promoting transparency and accountability in public functioning.
The Court also found that the Managing Director of CIAL had filed the writ petitions and subsequent appeals without obtaining prior approval from the Board of Directors, including the Chief Minister, who is the Chairman of the Board. and further noted that this as a serious procedural lapse intended to conceal key decisions from general public shareholders.
The Court strongly deprecated this conduct and directed the Chief Secretary of Kerala (also a Board member) to take appropriate action against the Managing Director. Also, ensure such unauthorized litigation is not repeated, and file an Action Taken Report in a sealed cover before the Registry within 15 days.
The Court also imposed a cost of ?1 lakh on CIAL, to be deposited in the account of the Kerala High Court Advocates’ Association within 10 days.
While arguments were raised about exemptions under Sections 8 and 9 of the RTI Act (concerning third-party information), the Court refrained from adjudicating those, leaving it to be decided by the Public Information Officer (PIO) through a reasoned and speaking order.
The writ appeals were dismissed with directions for compliance monitoring, reflecting the Court’s commitment to upholding transparency and administrative accountability.
Appearances:
Petitioner: Sri S. Sreekumar (Sr.); Shri Harikrishnan S.
Respondent: Shri M Ajay, SC, State Information Commission; Shri P.K. Ibrahim