Moneylife: New Delhi: Thursday, 9th July 2026.
In a significant judgment
strengthening the Right to Information (RTI) regime, the Supreme Court has
struck down a Madhya Pradesh (MP) government notification that exempted the
special police establishment (SPE) of the Lokayukt organisation from the purview
of the RTI Act. The Court held that the SPE, which investigates corruption and
certain economic offences involving public servants, cannot be classified as an
'intelligence and security organisation' entitled to exemption under Section
24(4) of the RTI Act.
In an order last month, a bench of justice JK Maheshwari and justice Atul S Chandurkar said, "we are of the considered opinion that the notification dated 25 August 2011 issued by the general administration department (GAD) 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 as it provides for matters not enumerated under Section 7 of the Act of 1947. 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, cannot be termed an ‘intelligence and security’ organisation for the purposes of Section 24(4) of the Act of 2005."
"The notification dated 25 August 2011 does not conform to Section 24(4) of the Act of 2005 and is, thus, excessive in nature...the notification dated 25 August 2011 issued by the GAD seeking to exclude the SPE from the applicability of the provisions of the Act of 2005 is struck down," the apex court said.
The bench dismissed an appeal filed by the SPE against a Madhya Pradesh High Court judgment and struck down a 2011 state government notification that had excluded the SPE from the ambit of the RTI Act.
The Court, however, clarified that it had not examined the validity of the same notification insofar as it applied to the state bureau of investigation of economic offences, meaning that part of the notification would continue to operate.
The appeal arose after an RTI applicant sought information from the special police establishment. The investigating agency relied on a notification dated 25 August 2011 issued by the MP government under Section 24(4) of the RTI Act, claiming exemption from the Act as an 'intelligence and security organisation'.
The principal question before the Supreme Court was whether the SPE, constituted under the Madhya Pradesh Special Police Establishment Act, 1947, to investigate corruption and specified offences involving public servants, could legally be treated as an intelligence and security organisation under Section 24(4) of the RTI Act.
One notable aspect of the judgment is the Court's decision to examine the validity of the notification even though the RTI applicant had not specifically challenged it before the High Court.
The apex court observed that, while specific pleadings are ordinarily required before subordinate legislation is struck down, courts are not precluded from examining its legality if the issue arises directly during proceedings and the affected government is given a full opportunity to justify the provision.
The judges noted that the state government had been granted an adequate opportunity to defend the notification through detailed submissions and arguments before the Supreme Court.
The Court analysed Section 24 of the RTI Act, which exempts only intelligence and security organisations established by the central or state governments from the Act's provisions.
It observed that the organisations listed in the Second Schedule of the RTI Act such as intelligence agencies, armed forces and national security organisations are fundamentally engaged in intelligence gathering or national security functions.
By contrast, the SPE's statutory mandate is confined to investigating offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, criminal breach of trust, cheating and specified offences relating to forged documents committed by public servants or employees of government bodies.
The Court said this limited jurisdiction clearly distinguished the SPE from organisations engaged in intelligence or security work.
The Bench examined the legislative framework governing the MP Lokayukt organisation and the special police establishment.
It noted that the Lokayukt was established to investigate allegations of corruption against public servants and functions as an independent anti-corruption institution.
The judgment referred to the statement of objects and reasons of the Madhya Pradesh Lokayukt and Up-Lokayukt Act, 1981, as well as the organisation's own description on its official website, both of which emphasise its role in preventing and investigating corruption rather than performing intelligence or security functions.
The Court further observed that successive notifications issued under the Madhya Pradesh Special Police Establishment Act consistently restricted the SPE's jurisdiction to corruption offences and a limited class of Indian Penal Code (IPC) offences involving public servants.
Therefore, it held, neither the Lokayukt nor the SPE has any statutory responsibility relating to intelligence gathering or national security.
The Supreme Court held that the 2011 notification exceeded the powers conferred by Section 24(4) of the RTI Act.
It observed that subordinate legislation can always be tested against the parent statute and struck down if it travels beyond the authority granted by Parliament.
Quoting earlier precedents, the Bench reiterated that delegated legislation enjoys no greater immunity than ordinary executive action and must conform to the limits prescribed by the enabling statute.
The Court concluded that the notification failed this test because the SPE could not legally be categorised as an intelligence and security organisation.
Rejecting the state government's argument that the notification was intended to protect informers and ongoing investigations, the Court pointed out that the RTI Act already contains safeguards under Section 8.
Information whose disclosure could impede an investigation or endanger the life or safety of informers is already exempt from disclosure under Sections 8(1)(g) and 8(1)(h).
Consequently, extending a blanket exemption under Section 24(4) was not legally justified.
Holding that the special police establishment's statutory functions are confined to investigating corruption and specified criminal offences and do not relate to intelligence or security, the Supreme Court declared that the 2011 notification excluding the SPE from the RTI Act was ultra vires Section 24(4).
The Bench upheld the Madhya Pradesh High Court's judgment, struck down the notification to the extent it exempted the SPE from the RTI Act, and dismissed the criminal appeal.
However, it clarified that the judgment does not affect the notification's applicability to the state bureau of investigation of economic offences, as that question was not before the Court.
On 6 September 2024, the Maharashtra government decided to put the anti-corruption bureau (ACB) out of the RTI ambit, sparking a wave of protests from activists across the state. The notification was surreptitiously posted only on the ACB’s website, not on the Maharashtra government’s website, as is the norm. (Read: Congress-NCP govt removed Anti-Corruption Bureau from RTI just before polls)
This had drawn ire from RTI activists, especially those who had lodged formal complaints against powerful politicians in Maharashtra for corruption.
In October 2024, the then governor of Maharashtra, Vidyasagar Rao, used his power to scrap the notification. The press statement issued by the Raj Bhavan stated, “The Governor took the decision to withdraw the notification issued by the State Government on 6 September 2014 after considering representations from various RTI activists and taking cognisance of newspaper reports which reflected the view that the notification was in violation of the RTI Act. The Governor also got the issue legally examined before taking the decision to withdraw the notification.” (Read: Maharashtra Governor puts ACB back in RTI Act)
In an order last month, a bench of justice JK Maheshwari and justice Atul S Chandurkar said, "we are of the considered opinion that the notification dated 25 August 2011 issued by the general administration department (GAD) 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 as it provides for matters not enumerated under Section 7 of the Act of 1947. 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, cannot be termed an ‘intelligence and security’ organisation for the purposes of Section 24(4) of the Act of 2005."
"The notification dated 25 August 2011 does not conform to Section 24(4) of the Act of 2005 and is, thus, excessive in nature...the notification dated 25 August 2011 issued by the GAD seeking to exclude the SPE from the applicability of the provisions of the Act of 2005 is struck down," the apex court said.
The bench dismissed an appeal filed by the SPE against a Madhya Pradesh High Court judgment and struck down a 2011 state government notification that had excluded the SPE from the ambit of the RTI Act.
The Court, however, clarified that it had not examined the validity of the same notification insofar as it applied to the state bureau of investigation of economic offences, meaning that part of the notification would continue to operate.
The appeal arose after an RTI applicant sought information from the special police establishment. The investigating agency relied on a notification dated 25 August 2011 issued by the MP government under Section 24(4) of the RTI Act, claiming exemption from the Act as an 'intelligence and security organisation'.
The principal question before the Supreme Court was whether the SPE, constituted under the Madhya Pradesh Special Police Establishment Act, 1947, to investigate corruption and specified offences involving public servants, could legally be treated as an intelligence and security organisation under Section 24(4) of the RTI Act.
One notable aspect of the judgment is the Court's decision to examine the validity of the notification even though the RTI applicant had not specifically challenged it before the High Court.
The apex court observed that, while specific pleadings are ordinarily required before subordinate legislation is struck down, courts are not precluded from examining its legality if the issue arises directly during proceedings and the affected government is given a full opportunity to justify the provision.
The judges noted that the state government had been granted an adequate opportunity to defend the notification through detailed submissions and arguments before the Supreme Court.
The Court analysed Section 24 of the RTI Act, which exempts only intelligence and security organisations established by the central or state governments from the Act's provisions.
It observed that the organisations listed in the Second Schedule of the RTI Act such as intelligence agencies, armed forces and national security organisations are fundamentally engaged in intelligence gathering or national security functions.
By contrast, the SPE's statutory mandate is confined to investigating offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, criminal breach of trust, cheating and specified offences relating to forged documents committed by public servants or employees of government bodies.
The Court said this limited jurisdiction clearly distinguished the SPE from organisations engaged in intelligence or security work.
The Bench examined the legislative framework governing the MP Lokayukt organisation and the special police establishment.
It noted that the Lokayukt was established to investigate allegations of corruption against public servants and functions as an independent anti-corruption institution.
The judgment referred to the statement of objects and reasons of the Madhya Pradesh Lokayukt and Up-Lokayukt Act, 1981, as well as the organisation's own description on its official website, both of which emphasise its role in preventing and investigating corruption rather than performing intelligence or security functions.
The Court further observed that successive notifications issued under the Madhya Pradesh Special Police Establishment Act consistently restricted the SPE's jurisdiction to corruption offences and a limited class of Indian Penal Code (IPC) offences involving public servants.
Therefore, it held, neither the Lokayukt nor the SPE has any statutory responsibility relating to intelligence gathering or national security.
The Supreme Court held that the 2011 notification exceeded the powers conferred by Section 24(4) of the RTI Act.
It observed that subordinate legislation can always be tested against the parent statute and struck down if it travels beyond the authority granted by Parliament.
Quoting earlier precedents, the Bench reiterated that delegated legislation enjoys no greater immunity than ordinary executive action and must conform to the limits prescribed by the enabling statute.
The Court concluded that the notification failed this test because the SPE could not legally be categorised as an intelligence and security organisation.
Rejecting the state government's argument that the notification was intended to protect informers and ongoing investigations, the Court pointed out that the RTI Act already contains safeguards under Section 8.
Information whose disclosure could impede an investigation or endanger the life or safety of informers is already exempt from disclosure under Sections 8(1)(g) and 8(1)(h).
Consequently, extending a blanket exemption under Section 24(4) was not legally justified.
Holding that the special police establishment's statutory functions are confined to investigating corruption and specified criminal offences and do not relate to intelligence or security, the Supreme Court declared that the 2011 notification excluding the SPE from the RTI Act was ultra vires Section 24(4).
The Bench upheld the Madhya Pradesh High Court's judgment, struck down the notification to the extent it exempted the SPE from the RTI Act, and dismissed the criminal appeal.
However, it clarified that the judgment does not affect the notification's applicability to the state bureau of investigation of economic offences, as that question was not before the Court.
On 6 September 2024, the Maharashtra government decided to put the anti-corruption bureau (ACB) out of the RTI ambit, sparking a wave of protests from activists across the state. The notification was surreptitiously posted only on the ACB’s website, not on the Maharashtra government’s website, as is the norm. (Read: Congress-NCP govt removed Anti-Corruption Bureau from RTI just before polls)
This had drawn ire from RTI activists, especially those who had lodged formal complaints against powerful politicians in Maharashtra for corruption.
In October 2024, the then governor of Maharashtra, Vidyasagar Rao, used his power to scrap the notification. The press statement issued by the Raj Bhavan stated, “The Governor took the decision to withdraw the notification issued by the State Government on 6 September 2014 after considering representations from various RTI activists and taking cognisance of newspaper reports which reflected the view that the notification was in violation of the RTI Act. The Governor also got the issue legally examined before taking the decision to withdraw the notification.” (Read: Maharashtra Governor puts ACB back in RTI Act)
.JPG)
.JPG)
