CHENNAI: The Madras High Court has ruled that the Tamil Nadu Cooperating Market Federation (Tanfed) comes under the purview of the Right to Information (RTI) Act as its affairs are controlled by the state government.
Justice V Lakshminarayanan issued the ruling on a petition by P Jothibasu challenging the October 3, 2025, order of the state information commissioner rejecting his application filed on May 2, 2023, seeking certain information.
Jothibasu had sought information on the activities of the federation, including the varieties of fertilisers procured, the list of organisations from which procurement is carried out, and tender guidelines for purchase of organic manure and bio-stimulant, among others.
The federation’s public information officer concerned, however, denied disclosure of the information stating that cooperative societies do not come under the purview of the RTI Act and cited the Supreme Court judgment in the Thalappalam case for the same.
After Jothibasu’s first appeal with the department was rejected, he filed a second appeal with the state information commissioner. That, too, was dismissed. He then moved the high court.
The judge noted that Tanfed has been appointed the nodal agent with respect to the activities of the National Agricultural Co-operative Marketing Federation of India Limited (Nafed). In that capacity, it sponsors and undertakes Price Support Scheme (PSS) to protect farmers from price decline.
Furthermore, whenever the prices of essential commodities undergo an unreasonable hike, Tanfed intervenes and stabilises the prices of the essential items. All these show that Tanfed acts as an implementing arm of the state government for its agricultural policies, the judge said.
Referring to a GO appointing Information Officers to the federation, the judge said he was unable to appreciate the stand of the respondents that the RTI Act does not cover them when the government is clear that the information held by Tanfed should be disclosed under the same.
He also noted that the information sought by the petitioner does not fall under the exemptions under Section 8 of the RTI Act and ordered the respondent authorities to furnish the details as sought by the petitioner. Advocate M Purushothaman represented the petitioner.