Verdictum: Chandigarh: Wednesday, 17 June 2026.
The Apex Court struck down a State Government notification that exempted the SPE from the purview of the RTI Act, holding that its jurisdiction is confined to investigating corruption-related offences involving public servants and does not extend to matters of intelligence or security.
The Supreme Court held that the Special Police Establishment constituted under
the Madhya Pradesh Special Police Establishment Act, 1947, for assisting the
Lokayukta and Up-Lokayukta in corruption-related investigations, cannot be
exempted from the operation of the Right to Information Act, 2005, by treating
it as an “intelligence and security organisation”.
The Court dismissed an appeal filed by the Special Police Establishment, Madhya Pradesh, and upheld a Madhya Pradesh High Court judgment that directed the disclosure of information sought under the Right to Information Act, 2005, concerning the sanction granted for the prosecution of a public servant under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
A Bench of Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar held: “The sphere of operation of the SPE constituted under the Act of 1947 would be governed and guided only by matters that may be enquired into by the Lokayukt or Up-Lokayukt under Section 7 of the Act of 1981. The jurisdiction, in that sense, is limited to an allegation in relation to a public servant in the context of the Act of 1988.”
The Court further observed: “The SPE having been conferred jurisdiction only to investigate offences punishable under the Act of 1988, Sections 409, 420 and Chapter XVIII of the Penal Code, it cannot be termed to be an ‘intelligence and security’ organisation for the purposes of Section 24(4) of the Act of 2005.”
Advocate Nishant Ramakantrao Katneshwarkar, AOR, appeared for the appellant-establishment. Prashant Singh, Advocate General, appeared for the respondent State. Advocate Rajeev Singh, AOR, represented the respondent-applicant
Background
Respondent-applicant, a Town Inspector posted at Police Station Madhav Nagar, Katni, was implicated in a trap case registered by the Special Police Establishment under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Following the grant of sanction for his prosecution by the State Government, he sought information under the RTI Act regarding the decision-making process leading to the grant of sanction and communications exchanged in that regard.
The request was rejected, and the State Information Commission upheld the refusal by relying upon Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act. However, the Madhya Pradesh High Court found that the investigation had already concluded and directed disclosure of the information sought. Aggrieved thereby, the Special Police Establishment approached the Supreme Court.
Before the Supreme Court, the appellant relied upon a notification dated 25 August 2011 issued by the General Administration Department of the State Government under Section 24(4) of the RTI Act, exempting the Madhya Pradesh Special Police Establishment of the Lokayukta Organisation from the applicability of the RTI Act.
Court's Observations
The Court noted that, although the notification dated 25 August 2011 had not been specifically challenged before the High Court, the appellant sought to rely on the notification to defeat the RTI claim. This led the Court to examine whether the notification was consistent with Section 24(4) of the RTI Act.
Referring to its power to examine the validity of subordinate legislation, the Court observed that where a pure question of statutory interpretation arises, and the State has been afforded adequate opportunity to justify the measure, the Court is not precluded from testing its legality.
The Bench undertook an examination of Section 24 of the RTI Act and noted that both sub-sections (1) and (4) exempt only “intelligence and security organisations” from the operation of the statute. It observed that organisations listed in the Second Schedule to the RTI Act, such as the Enforcement Directorate, Border Security Force, Central Reserve Police Force and National Investigation Agency, are specifically concerned with intelligence gathering, national security or internal security functions.
According to the Court, the expression “intelligence and security organisations” cannot be interpreted expansively to include every investigative agency established by the State Government.
The Court examined the statutory framework governing the Madhya Pradesh Lokayukt Evam Up-Lokayukt Adhiniyam, 1981 and observed that the legislation was enacted to establish an independent mechanism for enquiring into allegations of corruption, misconduct and abuse of office by public servants.
The Court noted that Section 7 of the 1981 Act authorises the Lokayukt and Up-Lokayukt to enquire into allegations against public servants, while the Special Police Establishment functions as an investigative arm assisting those authorities.
Referring to various notifications issued under the Madhya Pradesh Special Police Establishment Act, 1947, the Court observed that the SPE is empowered only to investigate offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Sections 409 and 420 IPC, offences under Chapter XVIII of the IPC and related conspiracies.
The Bench remarked: "The various Notifications issued by the State Government under Section 3 of the Act of 1947 from time to time are limited to offences punishable under the Act of 1988, Sections 409, 420 and Chapter XVIII of the Penal Code. Though Section 24(4) of the Act of 2005 states that the Act would apply to such ‘intelligence and security organisations’ established by the State Government as notified, 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 Bench further held: “The statutory scheme under which the SPE stands constituted coupled with the jurisdiction conferred on the Lokayukt or Up-Lokayukt clearly indicate that the SPE cannot be termed to be an ‘intelligence and security’ organisation when it assists the Lokayukt or Up-Lokayukt in matters specified by Section 7 of the Act of 1981.”
The Court found that the notification dated 25 August 2011 sought to exempt the SPE from the RTI Act by invoking Section 24(4), despite the SPE not qualifying as an “intelligence and security organisation”.
The Bench observed that subordinate legislation can be invalidated when it exceeds the limits of authority conferred by the parent enactment. Since Section 24(4) permits exemption only for intelligence and security organisations, extending that exemption to the SPE was beyond statutory authority.
The Court held: "The SPE having been conferred jurisdiction only to investigate offences punishable under the Act of 1988, Sections 409, 420 and Chapter XVIII of the Penal Code, it cannot be termed to be an ‘intelligence and security’ organisation for the purposes of Section 24(4) of the Act of 2005".
“The Notification dated 25.08.2011 issued by the GAD of the State of Madhya Pradesh to the extent it seeks to exclude the SPE from the purview of the Act of 2005 in view of Section 24(4) thereof is liable to be set aside as being bad in law”, the Court accordingly concluded.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court held that the Madhya Pradesh Special Police Establishment, functioning as the investigative arm of the Lokayukt Organisation for corruption-related offences involving public servants, cannot be characterised as an “intelligence and security organisation” under Section 24(4) of the Right to Information Act, 2005.
Consequently, the notification dated 25 August 2011, exempting the SPE from the RTI Act, was declared invalid and struck down. The Court maintained the High Court's direction requiring disclosure of information sought by the respondent under the RTI Act and dismissed the appeal.
Cause Title: Special Police Establishment v. Kamta Prasad Mishra & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 644)
Appearances: Appellant: Nishant Ramakantrao Katneshwarkar, AOR.
Respondents: Advocates Rajeev Singh, Naveen Kumar Singh; Prashant Singh (Advocate General), Advocates Sridhar Potaraju, Manisha T. Karia, D.S. Parmar, Harmeet Singh Ruprah, Abhimanyu Singh Ga and Karan Singh.
(Click here to read/download Judgment)
The Apex Court struck down a State Government notification that exempted the SPE from the purview of the RTI Act, holding that its jurisdiction is confined to investigating corruption-related offences involving public servants and does not extend to matters of intelligence or security.
The Court dismissed an appeal filed by the Special Police Establishment, Madhya Pradesh, and upheld a Madhya Pradesh High Court judgment that directed the disclosure of information sought under the Right to Information Act, 2005, concerning the sanction granted for the prosecution of a public servant under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
A Bench of Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar held: “The sphere of operation of the SPE constituted under the Act of 1947 would be governed and guided only by matters that may be enquired into by the Lokayukt or Up-Lokayukt under Section 7 of the Act of 1981. The jurisdiction, in that sense, is limited to an allegation in relation to a public servant in the context of the Act of 1988.”
The Court further observed: “The SPE having been conferred jurisdiction only to investigate offences punishable under the Act of 1988, Sections 409, 420 and Chapter XVIII of the Penal Code, it cannot be termed to be an ‘intelligence and security’ organisation for the purposes of Section 24(4) of the Act of 2005.”
Advocate Nishant Ramakantrao Katneshwarkar, AOR, appeared for the appellant-establishment. Prashant Singh, Advocate General, appeared for the respondent State. Advocate Rajeev Singh, AOR, represented the respondent-applicant
Background
Respondent-applicant, a Town Inspector posted at Police Station Madhav Nagar, Katni, was implicated in a trap case registered by the Special Police Establishment under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Following the grant of sanction for his prosecution by the State Government, he sought information under the RTI Act regarding the decision-making process leading to the grant of sanction and communications exchanged in that regard.
The request was rejected, and the State Information Commission upheld the refusal by relying upon Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act. However, the Madhya Pradesh High Court found that the investigation had already concluded and directed disclosure of the information sought. Aggrieved thereby, the Special Police Establishment approached the Supreme Court.
Before the Supreme Court, the appellant relied upon a notification dated 25 August 2011 issued by the General Administration Department of the State Government under Section 24(4) of the RTI Act, exempting the Madhya Pradesh Special Police Establishment of the Lokayukta Organisation from the applicability of the RTI Act.
Court's Observations
The Court noted that, although the notification dated 25 August 2011 had not been specifically challenged before the High Court, the appellant sought to rely on the notification to defeat the RTI claim. This led the Court to examine whether the notification was consistent with Section 24(4) of the RTI Act.
Referring to its power to examine the validity of subordinate legislation, the Court observed that where a pure question of statutory interpretation arises, and the State has been afforded adequate opportunity to justify the measure, the Court is not precluded from testing its legality.
The Bench undertook an examination of Section 24 of the RTI Act and noted that both sub-sections (1) and (4) exempt only “intelligence and security organisations” from the operation of the statute. It observed that organisations listed in the Second Schedule to the RTI Act, such as the Enforcement Directorate, Border Security Force, Central Reserve Police Force and National Investigation Agency, are specifically concerned with intelligence gathering, national security or internal security functions.
According to the Court, the expression “intelligence and security organisations” cannot be interpreted expansively to include every investigative agency established by the State Government.
The Court examined the statutory framework governing the Madhya Pradesh Lokayukt Evam Up-Lokayukt Adhiniyam, 1981 and observed that the legislation was enacted to establish an independent mechanism for enquiring into allegations of corruption, misconduct and abuse of office by public servants.
The Court noted that Section 7 of the 1981 Act authorises the Lokayukt and Up-Lokayukt to enquire into allegations against public servants, while the Special Police Establishment functions as an investigative arm assisting those authorities.
Referring to various notifications issued under the Madhya Pradesh Special Police Establishment Act, 1947, the Court observed that the SPE is empowered only to investigate offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Sections 409 and 420 IPC, offences under Chapter XVIII of the IPC and related conspiracies.
The Bench remarked: "The various Notifications issued by the State Government under Section 3 of the Act of 1947 from time to time are limited to offences punishable under the Act of 1988, Sections 409, 420 and Chapter XVIII of the Penal Code. Though Section 24(4) of the Act of 2005 states that the Act would apply to such ‘intelligence and security organisations’ established by the State Government as notified, 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 Bench further held: “The statutory scheme under which the SPE stands constituted coupled with the jurisdiction conferred on the Lokayukt or Up-Lokayukt clearly indicate that the SPE cannot be termed to be an ‘intelligence and security’ organisation when it assists the Lokayukt or Up-Lokayukt in matters specified by Section 7 of the Act of 1981.”
The Court found that the notification dated 25 August 2011 sought to exempt the SPE from the RTI Act by invoking Section 24(4), despite the SPE not qualifying as an “intelligence and security organisation”.
The Bench observed that subordinate legislation can be invalidated when it exceeds the limits of authority conferred by the parent enactment. Since Section 24(4) permits exemption only for intelligence and security organisations, extending that exemption to the SPE was beyond statutory authority.
The Court held: "The SPE having been conferred jurisdiction only to investigate offences punishable under the Act of 1988, Sections 409, 420 and Chapter XVIII of the Penal Code, it cannot be termed to be an ‘intelligence and security’ organisation for the purposes of Section 24(4) of the Act of 2005".
“The Notification dated 25.08.2011 issued by the GAD of the State of Madhya Pradesh to the extent it seeks to exclude the SPE from the purview of the Act of 2005 in view of Section 24(4) thereof is liable to be set aside as being bad in law”, the Court accordingly concluded.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court held that the Madhya Pradesh Special Police Establishment, functioning as the investigative arm of the Lokayukt Organisation for corruption-related offences involving public servants, cannot be characterised as an “intelligence and security organisation” under Section 24(4) of the Right to Information Act, 2005.
Consequently, the notification dated 25 August 2011, exempting the SPE from the RTI Act, was declared invalid and struck down. The Court maintained the High Court's direction requiring disclosure of information sought by the respondent under the RTI Act and dismissed the appeal.
Cause Title: Special Police Establishment v. Kamta Prasad Mishra & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 644)
Appearances: Appellant: Nishant Ramakantrao Katneshwarkar, AOR.
Respondents: Advocates Rajeev Singh, Naveen Kumar Singh; Prashant Singh (Advocate General), Advocates Sridhar Potaraju, Manisha T. Karia, D.S. Parmar, Harmeet Singh Ruprah, Abhimanyu Singh Ga and Karan Singh.
(Click here to read/download Judgment)
.JPG)
.JPG)
