Punjab and Haryana High Court's recent judgment in Saraswati Kunj Cooperative Housing Building Society v. Haryana State Information Commission (Justice Kuldeep Tiwari) has profound implications and will reshape how housing societies function across the country.
Justice Tiwari upheld the Haryana State Information Commission's orders from earlier this year, rejecting the society's contention that it was a private body outside the scope of the RTI Act. The reasoning hinged on Section 83 of the Haryana Regulation and Registration of Societies Act, 2012, which explicitly treats society documents filed with the District Registrar as "public documents" accessible under RTI.More importantly, the Court held that the Registrar of Cooperative Societies—being a statutory authority with supervisory powers—is a "public authority" under the RTI Act. Since the Registrar is required by law to access society information, citizens can also access this information through RTI applications to the Registrar. The Court invoked the proviso to Section 8, noting that what cannot be hidden from Parliament cannot be denied to ordinary citizens either.
Members Finally Have Real Power
I've been appearing in society disputes for years, and the recurring complaint is always the same: managing committees operate like closed clubs, financial records are opaque, and dissenting members are stonewalled. This judgment changes that dynamic fundamentally.Members can now request detailed financial records—not just annual balance sheets, but also bank statements, vendor contracts, maintenance expenditure breakdowns, and investment details. They can access meeting minutes, election records, and administrative correspondence. Perhaps most significantly for ongoing disputes, they can obtain builder handover documents, common area specifications, and updates on conveyance deed status.However, personal information of other residents remains protected under Section 8(1)(j). And recent judgments have made clear that RTI cannot be weaponized for harassment or personal vendettas.
Buyers Get a New Tool
As someone who has witnessed numerous disputes between flat owners and builders,I find this judgment provides buyers with something we've desperately needed: a verification mechanism before purchase. Prospective buyers can now verify whether the builder has actually delivered all promised amenities, whether the society has undisclosed debts, and whether there are any structural or legal issues lurking beneath the surface.For existing owners fighting developers who refuse to hand over buildings or complete conveyance deeds, RTI becomes a powerful weapon. Builders who continue controlling societies years after the majority occupation can no longer hide behind procedural delays. Financial records regarding maintenance advances collected during construction—and what happened to them—can now be demanded and scrutinized.
This will inevitably affect property valuations. Societies with clean, transparent records will command premium prices and vice versa.Sellers may discover that undisclosed problems later revealed through RTI—can trigger legal disputes even after the sale.
Builders Face a New Reality
From a developer's perspective, this judgment extends accountability well beyond traditional completion and handover. Even years later, builders may face RTI applications demanding disclosure of construction costs, vendor payments, and how buyer funds were utilized. The opacity that characterizes much of real estate development—actual costs versus sale prices, preferential area calculations, quality compromises—now faces potential scrutiny.
Smart developers are already adjusting. Meticulous documentation from project inception becomes essential. RERA compliance suddenly matters not just for regulatory approval but because those disclosures will satisfy many future RTI queries. Clean exits from projects—with complete documentation, financial closure, and proper handover—become critical to avoiding years of post-sale exposure.
The commercial implications are real. Greater transparency may squeeze profit margins on amenities and common areas. Disclosures may trigger litigation from buyers who discover deviations from approved plans. Developers in states with strict RTI enforcement may find themselves at a competitive disadvantage compared to states with lax implementation.
The Compliance Burden
Societies must now appoint trained Public Information Officers and First Appellate Authorities. They need to transition from the informal record-keeping most currently practiced to systematic documentation and digitization. Meeting minutes must be detailed and reasoned. Response timelines are statutory—30 days, no excuses.This costs money and time. Document management systems, digitization of old records, legal consultations to determine exemptions, and administrative effort responding to applications all add up. PIOs face personal liability under Section 20 for non-compliance, which creates very real risks.The most delicate challenge is striking a balance between transparency and privacy. Managing committees must learn to distinguish between legitimate information requests and applications filed for harassment or collateral purposes.
Looking Ahead
This judgment rests heavily on Haryana's specific legislation, Section 83 of the Haryana Right to Services Act, 2012. What happens in states still governed by the old Societies Registration Act, 1860, without similar provisions? Courts will have to decide whether regulatory control alone brings societies within the ambit of RTI. Given the nationwide implications, Supreme Court review seems likely and necessary to establish uniform principles.Until then, interstate variations will create confusion. Different apartment ownership acts have varying governance structures that don't always mesh neatly with RTI provisions. Societies in Delhi, for instance, may face entirely different frameworks than those in Haryana.
Practical Advice
For lawmakers, uniform national legislation would be of tremendous help. Harmonization with RERA would create seamless transparency from project launch through operation. For societies, proactive disclosure—voluntarily publishing accounts, minutes, and contracts—reduces RTI burden while building member trust.Builders need comprehensive documentation from day one, anticipating future disclosure requirements.
Final Thoughts
This judgment empowers residents to become active stakeholders with statutory rights to information. It gives buyers tools to protect themselves against developer malpractices. It forces builders toward transparency and meticulous record-keeping, which they should have maintained anyway.Yes, compliance will be challenging. The real test ahead is cultural, not legal. Will societies embrace transparency as the foundation of trust? Will managing committees view disclosure as an improvement in governance rather than an exposure of problems? Will members use RTI to build better communities rather than settle personal scores? Whether that mandate produces genuine transparency or just more litigation depends entirely on how stakeholders respond. Having seen decades of needless society disputes arising from opacity and distrust, I'm cautiously optimistic.
Powered by Torbit Realty.
