RTI Exemptions and the Limits of State Power

Why in News?

The Tamil Nadu government has withdrawn its September 21, 2026 Government Order that sought to exempt the Public (Law and Order) Department from the ambit of the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005, after criticism from political parties and civil-society groups.

The order had invoked Section 24(4) of the RTI Act, which permits a State Government to exempt specified intelligence and security organisations established by it from the Act. 

This raises an important governance question: how should legitimate requirements of confidentiality in law-and-order and security matters be reconciled with transparency and public accountability?

RTI and the Constitutional Value of Transparency: 

• The RTI Act, 2005 establishes a legal framework for citizens to access information held by public authorities.
• Objective: To promote transparency and accountability in the functioning of government. 
• Although the RTI Act is statutory, the Supreme Court has recognised the right to information as flowing from Article 19(1)(a), since meaningful freedom of speech and expression requires citizens to have access to relevant information.
• The RTI framework therefore seeks to move governance from a culture of official secrecy towards accountable administration. It simultaneously recognises legitimate exceptions relating to national security, privacy, commercial confidence and other protected interests.

Exemptions under the RTI Act:

(i) Section 24: Exemption for Intelligence and Security Organisations:

• Section 24 creates a special exemption from the RTI regime for specified intelligence and security organisations. 
• The Second Schedule to the Act contains a list of Central intelligence and security organisations, including the Intelligence Bureau, Research and Analysis Wing, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Enforcement Directorate, CRPF, BSF, CBI, NIA and others.

(ii) What does Section 24(4) provide?

• Section 24(4) allows a State Government, by notification in the Official Gazette, to exempt an intelligence or security organisation established by that State Government from the operation of the Act.
• However, this power is accompanied by safeguards:
  • the exemption has to be made through a notification
  • the notification has to be laid before the State Legislature; and
  • even exempt organisations are not completely insulated from the RTI framework concerning allegations of corruption and human-rights violations, subject to the statutory procedure.

Thus, Section 24 is an exception to the general rule of transparency, rather than a general power to exclude any department dealing with sensitive information.

The Key Issue: Is a Law-and-Order Department an Intelligence or Security Organisation?

This is the central legal and administrative issue raised by the withdrawn Tamil Nadu order.

• The Public (Law and Order) Department deals with highly sensitive subjects, including:
  • communal and caste conflicts
  • preventive detention under laws such as the NSA and COFEPOSA
  • police firing and deaths in police custody
  • police torture and deaths of remand prisoners
  • law-and-order intelligence and periodic security assessments
  • agitations and political protests
  • NHRC references
  • reports concerning communal and other law-and-order incidents.

The sensitivity of some of this information is therefore undeniable.

• However, dealing with sensitive information is not necessarily the same as being an “intelligence or security organisation” for the purposes of Section 24(4). This distinction is crucial. Otherwise, a broad administrative interpretation could potentially allow ordinary government departments dealing with sensitive subjects to claim the special exemption intended for specifically identified intelligence and security organisations.

Why does the RTI Act already provide Targeted Exemptions?

A major feature of the RTI framework is that confidentiality does not ordinarily require complete departmental exclusion.

• Section 8(1) already provides specific exemptions, including information whose disclosure may prejudicially affect:
  • sovereignty and integrity of India
  • security, strategic, scientific or economic interests of the State
  • relations with foreign States
  • investigation or prosecution
  • confidentiality protected by law
  • privacy of individuals; and
  • other legally protected interests.

This means that sensitive information can be protected without necessarily making the entire institution non-transparent.

Why Transparency matters in Law and Order?

• Law-and-order administration involves significant coercive powers of the State, including policing, preventive detention, crowd control and criminal investigation.
• Transparency is consequently important for accountability in areas such as police firing, custodial deaths, allegations of torture, preventive detention, implementation of recommendations of Commissions of Inquiry, communal and caste violence and exercise of executive discretion in law-and-order matters.

Broader Constitutional Dimensions:

• Article 19(1)(a) and informed citizenship: The right to information strengthens citizens’ ability to scrutinise government action and participate meaningfully in democratic governance.
• Article 14 and non-arbitrariness: Government exemptions from transparency mechanisms must have a legitimate legal basis and rational connection with their objective. A broad classification of an entire department as a security organisation therefore raises questions of administrative reasonableness.
• Rule of law: Executive authorities exercise powers within the limits prescribed by Parliament. Section 24(4) provides a specific statutory mechanism for State Governments; its invocation must therefore remain within the scope and purpose of the provision.
• Accountability of coercive institutions: Where governmental powers directly affect life, liberty and civil rights, mechanisms of oversight become particularly important. The RTI regime is one component of a broader accountability architecture that also includes courts, legislatures, human-rights institutions, audits and departmental mechanisms.

The Larger Governance Challenge:

• The RTI framework can help citizens, journalists, researchers and civil-society organisations examine whether public authorities are acting according to law and following established procedures.
• At the same time, disclosure of operational intelligence, confidential sources or information that could endanger individuals may legitimately require protection.

The challenge is therefore not transparency versus security, but designing a system in which necessary secrecy is protected without creating unnecessary opacity. The answer lies in calibrated transparency rather than either complete secrecy or unrestricted disclosure. This approach is already embedded in the architecture of the RTI Act through Sections 8, 10 and 24.

Section 10: Severability

• Where only a portion of a record is exempt, the RTI framework permits the non-exempt portion to be disclosed after severing the protected material.

This is particularly relevant to sensitive departments because it allows authorities to protect genuinely confidential information without necessarily withholding an entire document.

Way Forward:

• Apply Section 24 narrowly: The power under Section 24(4) should be used only where an organisation genuinely falls within the statutory category of an intelligence or security organisation, rather than merely because the department handles sensitive matters.
• Prefer information-specific exemptions: Where possible, authorities should rely on Section 8 exemptions for particular sensitive information rather than placing an entire department outside the RTI regime.
• Use severability: Under Section 10, confidential portions can be separated from information that can safely be disclosed. This can reconcile operational secrecy with institutional accountability.
• Strengthen proactive disclosure: Greater compliance with Section 4 can reduce the need for individual RTI applications. Departments can proactively publish information such as rules, procedures, organisational structures, budgets, decisions and implementation reports, while withholding genuinely sensitive material.
• Maintain independent oversight: Exemptions should not become a substitute for accountability. Information concerning corruption and human-rights violations remains subject to the special safeguards provided under Section 24, while courts, legislatures, human-rights institutions and other oversight mechanisms continue to perform their respective roles.

The withdrawal of Tamil Nadu’s order highlights an important principle of democratic governance: sensitivity of subject matter does not automatically justify institutional secrecy. The appropriate balance is therefore maximum disclosure with minimum necessary exemption. 

Practice Prelims MCQ: 

Q. Consider the following statements:

1. State governments may notify eligible intelligence and security organisations under Section 24(4).
2. Section 24 excludes all information concerning allegations of corruption.
3. Human-rights information from an exempt State organisation requires State Information Commission approval and carries a 45-day timeframe.

Which statements are correct?

(a) 1 and 2 only

(b) 1 and 3 only

(c) 2 and 3 only

(d) 1, 2 and 3

Answer: (b) Corruption-related information is expressly excepted from the Section 24 exclusion.

PDF