THE BEYOND OBITER LAW BLOG: Legal News
2 min read
The Supreme Court has upheld a Madhya Pradesh High Court direction requiring the Special Police Establishment (SPE) of the Lokayukta Organisation to furnish information sought under the Right to Information Act, 2005, while striking down a 2011 State Government notification that exempted the agency from the RTI regime.
The judgment was delivered by a Bench of Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar.
The dispute arose from an RTI application filed by a police inspector who sought documents relating to the sanction granted for his prosecution in a corruption case investigated by the SPE. While the Madhya Pradesh High Court directed disclosure of the requested information, the SPE challenged the decision before the Supreme Court, relying upon a 2011 notification issued by the State Government under Section 24(4) of the RTI Act exempting it from disclosure obligations.
The principal question before the Court was whether the SPE, which functions as the investigative arm of the Lokayukta and probes corruption-related offences involving public servants, could be classified as an “intelligence and security organisation” for the purposes of Section 24(4) of the RTI Act.
Answering the question in the negative, the Court held:
“The SPE cannot be termed an ‘intelligence and security’ organisation for the purposes of Section 24(4) of the RTI Act, 2005.”
The Bench noted that Section 24(4) permits exemption only for organisations engaged in intelligence and security functions. The SPE, however, is primarily tasked with investigating allegations of corruption, bribery, cheating, criminal breach of trust, misuse of public office and other offences falling within the jurisdiction of the Lokayukta under the Madhya Pradesh Lokayukt Evam Up-Lokayukt Adhiniyam, 1981.
Examining the statutory framework governing the Lokayukta and the SPE, the Court observed:
“The statutory scheme under which the SPE stands constituted, coupled with the jurisdiction conferred on the Lokayukta or the Up-Lokayukta, clearly indicates that the SPE cannot be termed to be an ‘intelligence and security’ organisation when it assists the Lokayukta or the Up-Lokayukta in matters specified by Section 7 of the Act of 1981.”
The Court emphasised that the SPE's role is limited to investigating corruption-related offences and that it does not perform intelligence-gathering or national security functions comparable to agencies specifically included in the Second Schedule of the RTI Act.
Rejecting the State's contention that disclosure could impede the investigation, the Court noted that a chargesheet had already been filed in the criminal case. It further observed that extending the exemption under Section 24(4) to the SPE would amount to an unwarranted expansion of a provision intended only for intelligence and security agencies.
Holding that the State Government had exceeded its statutory powers, the Court declared the 2011 notification exempting the SPE from the RTI Act to be invalid. Consequently, it upheld the High Court’s direction requiring disclosure of the information sought by the RTI applicant.
The judgment reinforces that exemptions under Section 24 of the RTI Act are limited to organisations genuinely engaged in intelligence and security functions and cannot be extended to anti-corruption investigative bodies merely because they conduct criminal investigations.