The Supreme Court has clarified that investigative bodies tasked solely with probing corruption by public servants cannot claim exemption from the Right to Information Act, 2005 merely by virtue of a state notification. This judgment reinforces the principle that transparency in public accountability cannot be undermined by broad, unsubstantiated claims of institutional sensitivity.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The first respondent, Kamta Prasad Mishra, was a Town Inspector at Police Station Madhav Nagar, Katni, Madhya Pradesh. He was implicated by the Special Police Establishment (SPE), Bhopal, in a corruption trap case under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. A First Information Report was registered on 11.04.2017. The Home Department of the State Government granted sanction for his prosecution on 20.05.2020.
Key Facts
- The first respondent filed an RTI application dated 01.07.2020 seeking details of the decision-making process behind the grant of prosecution sanction, including communications exchanged between government departments.
- The SPE, acting as the Public Information Officer, denied the request citing Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act, 2005, which exempts information that may impede investigation or prosecution.
- The State Information Commission rejected the first respondent’s appeal on 16.12.2020, upholding the denial.
- The first respondent approached the High Court of Madhya Pradesh via a writ petition.
- The High Court, by order dated 20.12.2021, set aside the Commission’s order and directed the SPE to provide the requested information within 30 days, while imposing costs of Rs. 5,000.
- The appellant, Special Police Establishment, challenged this order before the Supreme Court.
Procedural History
- 11.04.2017: FIR registered against first respondent under Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
- 20.05.2020: Sanction for prosecution granted by Home Department, Government of Madhya Pradesh.
- 01.07.2020: RTI application filed by first respondent seeking details of sanction process.
- 16.12.2020: State Information Commission dismissed appeal, upholding denial of information.
- 20.12.2021: Division Bench of High Court of Madhya Pradesh allowed writ petition, directed disclosure of information and imposed costs of Rs. 5,000.
- 28.03.2023: Criminal Appeal No. 3743 of 2024 filed in Supreme Court by appellant.
- 14.05.2026: Supreme Court raised suo motu question on validity of Notification dated 25.08.2011.
- 20.05.2026: Advocate General of Madhya Pradesh appeared and submitted arguments on behalf of the State.
- 15.06.2026: Judgment delivered by Supreme Court.
The Parties' Positions
Appellant (Special Police Establishment): Argued that the SPE, as an investigative arm of the Lokayukt Organisation, was exempt from the RTI Act under Notification dated 25.08.2011 issued under Section 24(4). It claimed disclosure would impede ongoing investigations and endanger informers.
Respondent (Kamta Prasad Mishra): Contended that the investigation was complete, charge-sheet filed, and the information sought pertained only to the sanction process - not operational details. He argued Section 8(1)(h) was inapplicable and the exemption under Section 24(4) was legally invalid.
Relief Sought
The appellant sought to set aside the High Court’s order and restore the State Information Commission’s denial. The respondent sought enforcement of the High Court’s direction to disclose information and uphold the principle of transparency.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether the Special Police Establishment, constituted under the Madhya Pradesh Special Police Establishment Act, 1947 to investigate corruption offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and related provisions of the Indian Penal Code, qualifies as an ‘intelligence and security organisation’ under Section 24(4) of the Right to Information Act, 2005, thereby justifying its exemption from disclosure obligations.
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant
The appellant relied on Notification dated 25.08.2011 issued by the General Administration Department, which excluded the SPE from the RTI Act’s purview. It argued that the SPE, as part of the Lokayukt Organisation, functioned similarly to central intelligence agencies listed in the Second Schedule of the RTI Act. Counsel cited Section 8(1)(h) and invoked institutional parity with central agencies like the CBI. Reference was made to Section 207 of the CrPC to argue that investigative materials should remain confidential until trial.
For the Respondent
The respondent contended that the investigation was complete, charge-sheet filed, and the information sought was purely procedural - relating to the sanction process, not operational tactics or informer identities. He argued that Section 24(4) applies only to organisations with genuine intelligence and security mandates, such as the NIA or RAW, not to corruption investigators. The exemption claimed was ultra vires the enabling provision of the RTI Act.
The Court's Analysis
The Court undertook a detailed statutory interpretation of Section 24(4) of the RTI Act, 2005, which permits state governments to exempt ‘intelligence and security organisations’ from the Act’s application. The Court emphasized that the term ‘intelligence and security organisation’ is not defined in the Act and must be interpreted in light of its context and purpose.
"The organisations referred to in the Second Schedule to the Act of 2005 are specifically concerned with ‘intelligence’ and ‘security’, having been constituted by the Central Government with that object in mind."
The Court examined the nature of central agencies listed in the Second Schedule - including the National Investigation Agency, Border Security Force, and Directorate of Enforcement - and found they are all tasked with safeguarding national sovereignty, internal security, or counter-intelligence functions. In contrast, the SPE’s jurisdiction, as defined by Notifications under Section 3 of the Madhya Pradesh Special Police Establishment Act, 1947, is strictly limited to investigating offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Sections 409 and 420 of the IPC, and Chapter XVIII (offences relating to documents and property marks). These are corruption and fraud offences, not matters of national security or intelligence.
The Court further analyzed the Madhya Pradesh Lokayukt and Up-Lokayukt Act, 1981, whose Statement of Objects and Reasons explicitly states its purpose: "to establish an independent mechanism to investigate allegations of corruption against high-ranking public servants." The Lokayukt Organisation itself, on its official website, describes its role as an instrument to "prevent/check corruption," not to engage in intelligence gathering or national security.
The Court rejected the State’s argument of "institutional parity" with central agencies, noting that the SPE’s mandate is neither broad nor secretive in nature. It held that the Notification dated 25.08.2011, which sought to exempt the SPE from the RTI Act, was beyond the scope of Section 24(4) because the SPE does not meet the statutory threshold of being an ‘intelligence and security organisation.’
"The SPE though established by the State Government, it is not empowered to investigate any offences or classes of offences related to ‘intelligence’ and ‘security’... The jurisdiction... is limited to an allegation in relation to a public servant in the context of the Act of 1988."
The Court also noted that the Allahabad High Court had previously struck down a similar exemption for the Uttar Pradesh Lokayukt, reinforcing a consistent judicial trend. The Court concluded that the Notification was ultra vires Section 24(4) and therefore void.
The Verdict
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the High Court’s order dated 20.12.2021. The Notification dated 25.08.2011 issued by the General Administration Department of Madhya Pradesh, to the extent it exempted the Special Police Establishment from the RTI Act, is hereby struck down as ultra vires Section 24(4) of the Right to Information Act, 2005. The appellant is directed to provide the information sought by the first respondent under his RTI application dated 01.07.2020 within 30 days of this judgment. Costs of Rs. 5,000 imposed by the High Court are affirmed. The Notification continues to apply to the State Bureau of Investigation of Economic Offences, as its validity was not challenged.
What This Means For Similar Cases
RTI Exemptions Require Precise Legal Basis
- Practitioners must now demonstrate that an organisation’s statutory mandate aligns with genuine intelligence or security functions - not merely investigative or anti-corruption roles - to claim exemption under Section 24(4).
- State notifications claiming RTI exemption must be grounded in the actual powers conferred by the parent statute; mere administrative convenience or institutional preference is insufficient.
- Courts will scrutinize the nature of offences investigated, not the label assigned to the agency.
Transparency in Corruption Cases Is Non-Negotiable
- Information relating to sanction processes for prosecution of public servants is not exempt under Section 8(1)(h) once investigation concludes and charge-sheet is filed.
- Public servants seeking to withhold procedural details of prosecution sanction must now show a real, imminent threat to ongoing investigation - not speculative harm.
- This judgment reinforces the Supreme Court’s consistent stance that the RTI Act is a tool for accountability, not secrecy.
State-Level Agencies Must Align with Central Standards
- The judgment aligns state-level corruption investigation bodies with the transparency norms applicable to central agencies like the CBI.
- Any future attempt by states to exempt Lokayukt-linked units from RTI will face the same legal hurdle: absence of an intelligence/security mandate.
- Legal advisors must now review all state notifications under Section 24(4) for consistency with the statutory definition of ‘intelligence and security organisation.’
