KOCHI: In a ruling with significant implications for transparency and corporate accountability, the Kerala High Court has declared that Cochin International Airport Ltd (CIAL) falls within the ambit of the Right to Information (RTI) Act, despite the government not holding a majority stake in the company.
The Division Bench passed the verdict on Tuesday in a long-standing case filed by MR Ajayan, a Kochi-based journalist, who had challenged CIAL’s refusal to disclose certain employment-related records on the grounds that it was not a “public authority” under the RTI Act.
“ CIAL’s functions, formation, and continuing ties with the state, including its substantial government shareholding and the consistent appointment of the Chief Minister as its Chairman, render it accountable to the public under the RTI framework,” a legal expert told businessbenchmark.news.
Significantly, the Bench also directed CIAL’s Managing Director S Suhas, IAS, to pay Rs1 lakh to the Bar Association account and criticised the company’s stand in the matter – particularly the MD’s conduct in not keeping the company’s Chairman informed about the developments in the case.
The order mandates that CIAL must process and respond to all pending RTI applications within 15 days, restoring access to long-denied information. CIAL has also been directed to fill the posts of Public Informations Officers.
Case dates back over a decade
The legal battle began about 15 years ago, when Ajayan filed an RTI application seeking details about the recruitment processes followed by the company. CIAL rejected the request, citing that it was not bound by the RTI Act since government ownership was below 51 per cent – just over 32 per cent – even though it remained the largest single shareholder.
Ajayan appealed to the State Information Commission, which ruled in his favour, pointing to the pivotal role of the government in the formation and functioning of CIAL — including land acquisition, policy direction, and capital mobilisation during the initial years. The Commission emphasised that public character and control, not just shareholding percentage, should determine RTI applicability.
CIAL subsequently obtained a stay from the High Court, prompting Ajaykumar to escalate the matter to the Supreme Court, which vacated the stay and referred the case back to the High Court for final adjudication – culminating in the present ruling.
