Law Beat: New Delhi: Saturday, 18 July 2026.
Holding that the Special Police Establishment is not an "intelligence and security organisation" under Section 24(4) of the RTI Act, the Supreme Court invalidated Madhya Pradesh's 2011 notification exempting it from the transparency law.
The Supreme Court has held
that the Special Police Establishment (SPE) of the Lokayukta in Madhya Pradesh
cannot be treated as an "intelligence and security organisation"
under Section 24(4) of the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005, and therefore
cannot be exempted from the transparency law.
A Bench of Justices J K Maheshwari and Atul S Chandurkar declared that the notification dated August 25, 2011, issued by the General Administration Department (GAD) of the Madhya Pradesh government excluding the SPE from the purview of the RTI Act was illegal.
Holding the notification to be excessive, the Bench observed, "The SPE having been conferred jurisdiction only to investigate offences punishable under the PC Act of 1988, Sections 409, 420 and Chapter XVIII of the Penal Code, it cannot be termed to be an ‘intelligence and security’ organisation".
Court accordingly upheld the Madhya Pradesh High Court's judgment dated December 20, 2021, which had struck down the 2011 notification.
Why did the case reach the Supreme Court?
The appeal arose after the high court directed the SPE to provide information sought by respondent Kamta Prasad Mishra regarding the process of granting sanction for his prosecution under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and the Lokayukta's response to various queries raised by him.
Mishra, who was serving as Town Inspector at Madhav Nagar Police Station in Katni, had been implicated by the Special Police Establishment in a trap case under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
He sought information relating to the decision-making process behind the grant of sanction for his prosecution. After the information was denied, he approached the high court.
The high court held that since the investigation had already been completed and the charge sheet had been filed, the information could not be withheld by invoking Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act, which exempts information whose disclosure would impede an investigation
Before the Supreme Court, the SPE argued that the RTI Act itself did not apply to it because of the 2011 notification issued under Section 24(4), which exempted the Madhya Pradesh Special Police Establishment of the Lokayukta Organisation from the Act.
Mishra, on the other hand, contended that Section 8(1)(h) had no application because the investigation was over. He submitted that he had merely sought information regarding the manner in which sanction for prosecution was granted and the communications exchanged in that regard, disclosure of which would not impede any investigation.
SPE not an "intelligence and security organisation"
The Supreme Court held that the SPE's statutory functions did not bring it within the scope of Section 24(4) of the RTI Act. Court first rejected the State's objection that the validity of the 2011 notification could not be examined because it had not been specifically challenged before the high court.
It observed that a court is not precluded from examining the validity of subordinate legislation, provided the concerned authority is given an opportunity to justify it.
"It is by now well settled that a piece of subordinate legislation does not carry the same degree of immunity that is enjoyed by a statute passed by a competent legislature. Besides the grounds on which plenary legislation can be challenged, subordinate legislation can also be challenged on the ground that it fails to conform to the statute under which it is made or it exceeds the limits of authority conferred by the enabling statute," the Bench said.
Court noted that the State Government had been given sufficient opportunity to justify the notification in the context of Section 24(4) of the RTI Act.
Examining the statutory scheme, the Bench pointed out that the organisations listed in the Second Schedule to the RTI Act are specifically concerned with intelligence and security and were constituted by the Central Government for those purposes.
In contrast, the SPE has only limited jurisdiction to investigate offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, along with offences under Sections 409, 420 and Chapter XVIII of the Indian Penal Code.
Rejecting the State's argument that the notification was issued to maintain institutional parity, Court observed that even the Lokayukta Organisation itself describes its role as preventing and checking corruption.
Court further noted that under the Madhya Pradesh Lokayukt and Up-Lokayukt Act, 1981, the Lokayukta has only limited jurisdiction to inquire into allegations against public servants.
"It is, thus, clear that insofar as issues of ‘intelligence’ and ‘security’ are concerned, neither the Lokayukt nor the Up-Lokayukt under the Act of 1981 has been conferred jurisdiction to make any enquiry," the Bench said.
Court also observed that although Section 24(4) permits State Governments to notify "intelligence and security organisations" for exemption under the RTI Act, the SPE does not investigate offences relating to intelligence or security.
"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 Bench held.
Holding the 2011 notification to be contrary to law, the Supreme Court upheld the high court's judgment and dismissed the criminal appeal.
Case Title: Special Police Establishment Vs Vs Kamta Prasad Mishra And Others
Bench: Justices J K Maheshwari and Atul S Chandurkar
Date of Judgment: June 15, 2026
(Click here to downloadjudgment)
Holding that the Special Police Establishment is not an "intelligence and security organisation" under Section 24(4) of the RTI Act, the Supreme Court invalidated Madhya Pradesh's 2011 notification exempting it from the transparency law.
 |
Supreme Court invalidates
MP notification exempting Lokayukta SPE from RTI. |
A Bench of Justices J K Maheshwari and Atul S Chandurkar declared that the notification dated August 25, 2011, issued by the General Administration Department (GAD) of the Madhya Pradesh government excluding the SPE from the purview of the RTI Act was illegal.
Holding the notification to be excessive, the Bench observed, "The SPE having been conferred jurisdiction only to investigate offences punishable under the PC Act of 1988, Sections 409, 420 and Chapter XVIII of the Penal Code, it cannot be termed to be an ‘intelligence and security’ organisation".
Court accordingly upheld the Madhya Pradesh High Court's judgment dated December 20, 2021, which had struck down the 2011 notification.
Why did the case reach the Supreme Court?
The appeal arose after the high court directed the SPE to provide information sought by respondent Kamta Prasad Mishra regarding the process of granting sanction for his prosecution under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and the Lokayukta's response to various queries raised by him.
Mishra, who was serving as Town Inspector at Madhav Nagar Police Station in Katni, had been implicated by the Special Police Establishment in a trap case under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
He sought information relating to the decision-making process behind the grant of sanction for his prosecution. After the information was denied, he approached the high court.
The high court held that since the investigation had already been completed and the charge sheet had been filed, the information could not be withheld by invoking Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act, which exempts information whose disclosure would impede an investigation
Before the Supreme Court, the SPE argued that the RTI Act itself did not apply to it because of the 2011 notification issued under Section 24(4), which exempted the Madhya Pradesh Special Police Establishment of the Lokayukta Organisation from the Act.
Mishra, on the other hand, contended that Section 8(1)(h) had no application because the investigation was over. He submitted that he had merely sought information regarding the manner in which sanction for prosecution was granted and the communications exchanged in that regard, disclosure of which would not impede any investigation.
SPE not an "intelligence and security organisation"
The Supreme Court held that the SPE's statutory functions did not bring it within the scope of Section 24(4) of the RTI Act. Court first rejected the State's objection that the validity of the 2011 notification could not be examined because it had not been specifically challenged before the high court.
It observed that a court is not precluded from examining the validity of subordinate legislation, provided the concerned authority is given an opportunity to justify it.
"It is by now well settled that a piece of subordinate legislation does not carry the same degree of immunity that is enjoyed by a statute passed by a competent legislature. Besides the grounds on which plenary legislation can be challenged, subordinate legislation can also be challenged on the ground that it fails to conform to the statute under which it is made or it exceeds the limits of authority conferred by the enabling statute," the Bench said.
Court noted that the State Government had been given sufficient opportunity to justify the notification in the context of Section 24(4) of the RTI Act.
Examining the statutory scheme, the Bench pointed out that the organisations listed in the Second Schedule to the RTI Act are specifically concerned with intelligence and security and were constituted by the Central Government for those purposes.
In contrast, the SPE has only limited jurisdiction to investigate offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, along with offences under Sections 409, 420 and Chapter XVIII of the Indian Penal Code.
Rejecting the State's argument that the notification was issued to maintain institutional parity, Court observed that even the Lokayukta Organisation itself describes its role as preventing and checking corruption.
Court further noted that under the Madhya Pradesh Lokayukt and Up-Lokayukt Act, 1981, the Lokayukta has only limited jurisdiction to inquire into allegations against public servants.
"It is, thus, clear that insofar as issues of ‘intelligence’ and ‘security’ are concerned, neither the Lokayukt nor the Up-Lokayukt under the Act of 1981 has been conferred jurisdiction to make any enquiry," the Bench said.
Court also observed that although Section 24(4) permits State Governments to notify "intelligence and security organisations" for exemption under the RTI Act, the SPE does not investigate offences relating to intelligence or security.
"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 Bench held.
Holding the 2011 notification to be contrary to law, the Supreme Court upheld the high court's judgment and dismissed the criminal appeal.
Case Title: Special Police Establishment Vs Vs Kamta Prasad Mishra And Others
Bench: Justices J K Maheshwari and Atul S Chandurkar
Date of Judgment: June 15, 2026
(Click here to downloadjudgment)
.JPG)
.JPG)
