New Indian Express: Kochi: Sunday, 25 October 2026.
The Kerala government has exempted the VACB’s first and second T Branch sections from the RTI Act through an October 22 Gazette notification.
The UDF government’s move
to shield two key sections of the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau (VACB)
from the Right to Information (RTI) Act has triggered a storm of criticism,
with activists alleging that the exemption could render the transparency law
toothless and provide a convenient cover for corruption-related information.
Through a notification issued in an Extraordinary Gazette on Thursday, October 22, the government exempted the first and second sections of the T (Top Secret) branch of the VACB from the ambit of the RTI Act. The move, however, has raised questions about the government’s intention, the timing of the notification and the legality of selectively shielding sections within an organisation, rather than exempting an entire intelligence or security organisation as envisaged under Section 24(4) of the RTI Act.
Dr A A Hakkim, former State Information Commissioner who played a pivotal role in making the Justice Hema Committee report public, said the exemption could not be used to bypass the safeguards built into the law. “The primary objective of the Right to Information Act, 2005, is to curb corruption. The Act does not permit information relating to corruption or human rights violations to be withheld merely on the ground that an organisation has been exempted under Section 24,” he said.
Hakkim pointed to the timing of the order, which came shortly after certain information was disclosed through the RTI mechanism last week, raising legitimate doubts about the haste with which the government acted. He also questioned the procedure adopted by the government when the Legislative Assembly is in session.
Section 24(4) requires notifications issued under the provision to be laid before the state legislature, a statutory requirement that, according to him, has not been complied with. The State Information Commission too, appears to have been kept in the dark, he said.
The exemption also raises concerns about whether reports could be withheld even after an inquiry or investigation has concluded. While Section 8(1)(h) permits withholding information if disclosure would impede an investigation, apprehension or prosecution, such protection cannot automatically be extended to completed investigations. “The fundamental legal question is whether Section 24(4) can be invoked to impose a blanket restriction on information that is otherwise not exempt from disclosure under Sections 8 and 9,” Hakkim said, calling for clarity on the necessity, timing, legal basis and scope of the notification.
RTI activist M T Thomas said he would challenge the government order in the High Court, questioning the very basis for creating exemptions for two sections within the Vigilance department. He argued that the government could effectively place files it did not want disclosed under the top-secret classification, shutting out public scrutiny without a transparent system of safeguards.
“Any queries that are uncomfortable, especially those related to corruption, can be put on the T1 and T2 tables,” an RTI activist, who did not wish to be named, said.
The activist argued that Section 24 could not be used as a blanket shield against disclosure, particularly when the Act expressly safeguards information concerning corruption and human rights violations. “This is a colourable exercise of misuse of power,” the RTI activist said, alleging that queries concerning corruption involving ministers and MLAs could simply be classified as top secret and denied to the public.
He recalled a similar attempt during Oommen Chandy government’s tenure. Later, when Jacob Thomas was Vigilance director general under the LDF government, the top-secret classification was removed, bringing the relevant files back within the RTI framework.
Leader of the Opposition Pinarayi Vijayan has come down heavily on the UDF government for its decision to exclude Vigilance ‘T’ sections from under the purview of the Right To Information Act. Slamming the government, Pinarayi alleged that the move was aimed at covering up corruption. He urged the AICC leadership to clarify whether an anti-democratic move was carried out with its silent permission. The notification has come at a time when vigilance documents against the chief minister have come out. It’s evident that the notification was issued in a haste to protect the corrupt, he said.
The Kerala government has exempted the VACB’s first and second T Branch sections from the RTI Act through an October 22 Gazette notification.
Through a notification issued in an Extraordinary Gazette on Thursday, October 22, the government exempted the first and second sections of the T (Top Secret) branch of the VACB from the ambit of the RTI Act. The move, however, has raised questions about the government’s intention, the timing of the notification and the legality of selectively shielding sections within an organisation, rather than exempting an entire intelligence or security organisation as envisaged under Section 24(4) of the RTI Act.
Dr A A Hakkim, former State Information Commissioner who played a pivotal role in making the Justice Hema Committee report public, said the exemption could not be used to bypass the safeguards built into the law. “The primary objective of the Right to Information Act, 2005, is to curb corruption. The Act does not permit information relating to corruption or human rights violations to be withheld merely on the ground that an organisation has been exempted under Section 24,” he said.
Hakkim pointed to the timing of the order, which came shortly after certain information was disclosed through the RTI mechanism last week, raising legitimate doubts about the haste with which the government acted. He also questioned the procedure adopted by the government when the Legislative Assembly is in session.
Section 24(4) requires notifications issued under the provision to be laid before the state legislature, a statutory requirement that, according to him, has not been complied with. The State Information Commission too, appears to have been kept in the dark, he said.
The exemption also raises concerns about whether reports could be withheld even after an inquiry or investigation has concluded. While Section 8(1)(h) permits withholding information if disclosure would impede an investigation, apprehension or prosecution, such protection cannot automatically be extended to completed investigations. “The fundamental legal question is whether Section 24(4) can be invoked to impose a blanket restriction on information that is otherwise not exempt from disclosure under Sections 8 and 9,” Hakkim said, calling for clarity on the necessity, timing, legal basis and scope of the notification.
RTI activist M T Thomas said he would challenge the government order in the High Court, questioning the very basis for creating exemptions for two sections within the Vigilance department. He argued that the government could effectively place files it did not want disclosed under the top-secret classification, shutting out public scrutiny without a transparent system of safeguards.
“Any queries that are uncomfortable, especially those related to corruption, can be put on the T1 and T2 tables,” an RTI activist, who did not wish to be named, said.
The activist argued that Section 24 could not be used as a blanket shield against disclosure, particularly when the Act expressly safeguards information concerning corruption and human rights violations. “This is a colourable exercise of misuse of power,” the RTI activist said, alleging that queries concerning corruption involving ministers and MLAs could simply be classified as top secret and denied to the public.
He recalled a similar attempt during Oommen Chandy government’s tenure. Later, when Jacob Thomas was Vigilance director general under the LDF government, the top-secret classification was removed, bringing the relevant files back within the RTI framework.
Leader of the Opposition Pinarayi Vijayan has come down heavily on the UDF government for its decision to exclude Vigilance ‘T’ sections from under the purview of the Right To Information Act. Slamming the government, Pinarayi alleged that the move was aimed at covering up corruption. He urged the AICC leadership to clarify whether an anti-democratic move was carried out with its silent permission. The notification has come at a time when vigilance documents against the chief minister have come out. It’s evident that the notification was issued in a haste to protect the corrupt, he said.
.JPG)
.JPG)
