Section 24(4) RTI Act: Supreme Court Says MP Lokayukta SPE Cannot Claim ‘Intelligence and Security Organisation’ Exemption
In a landmark judgment strengthening the transparency regime under the Right to Information Act, 2005, the Supreme Court has held that the Special Police Establishment (SPE) of the Madhya Pradesh Lokayukta Organisation cannot claim exemption from the RTI Act as an “intelligence and security organisation” under Section 24(4). The Court struck down a 2011 notification issued by the Madhya Pradesh Government that sought to exclude the SPE from the purview of the RTI Act, holding that the notification travelled beyond the authority conferred by the statute.
A Division Bench comprising Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar dismissed the appeal filed by the Special Police Establishment and upheld the Madhya Pradesh High Court’s direction requiring disclosure of information sought under the RTI Act. The Court ruled that the statutory functions of the SPE are confined to investigating corruption and certain specified criminal offences involving public servants and do not involve intelligence or national security functions contemplated under Section 24(4) of the RTI Act.
The dispute arose after Kamta Prasad Mishra, a Town Inspector facing prosecution in a corruption trap case, sought information under the RTI Act regarding the process leading to the grant of sanction for his prosecution. His request was rejected on the ground that the Madhya Pradesh Government had issued a notification exempting the Lokayukta’s Special Police Establishment from the RTI Act. The High Court held the exemption inapplicable and directed disclosure, prompting the SPE to approach the Supreme Court.
Examining the statutory framework, the Supreme Court observed that Section 24(4) permits State Governments to exempt only those organisations that genuinely perform intelligence and security functions. The Bench held that neither the Lokayukt nor the Up-Lokayukt under the Madhya Pradesh Lokayukt and Up-Lokayukt Act is entrusted with intelligence or security responsibilities. Consequently, the Special Police Establishment, which merely assists these authorities by investigating corruption-related offences, cannot be characterised as an intelligence or security organisation.
The Court emphasized that the jurisdiction of the SPE is narrowly confined to investigating offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, along with specified offences under the Indian Penal Code, such as criminal breach of trust, cheating and certain forgery-related offences. Such investigative functions, the Bench held, are fundamentally different from intelligence gathering or national security operations contemplated under Section 24 of the RTI Act. Therefore, the statutory conditions necessary for claiming exemption were absent.
Holding the notification to be ultra vires, the Supreme Court ruled that the State Government could not enlarge the scope of Section 24(4) by extending exemption to an agency that does not fall within the category of intelligence and security organisations. The Court accordingly struck down the notification dated 25 August 2011 to the extent that it excluded the SPE from the RTI regime while affirming the High Court’s direction to furnish the information sought by the RTI applicant.
At the same time, the Bench clarified that its judgment was confined to the Special Police Establishment of the Lokayukta Organisation. It expressly left open the validity of the same notification insofar as it relates to the State Bureau of Investigation of Economic Offences, observing that the applicability of the exemption to that organisation had not been examined in the present proceedings. Accordingly, the notification would continue to operate with respect to that agency until decided in appropriate proceedings.
The ruling has significant implications for transparency and accountability in anti-corruption investigations. It reinforces the principle that exemptions under the RTI Act must be construed narrowly and can be invoked only by organisations that genuinely perform intelligence or security functions. Merely carrying out criminal investigations into corruption or public misconduct does not bring an agency within the protective ambit of Section 24(4). The judgment is expected to serve as an important precedent in future challenges to blanket RTI exemptions claimed by investigative bodies established by State Governments.
