The Hindu: Kochi: Wednesday, 28 October 2026.
They fear the decision will undermine transparency and accountability in the functioning of the government, the legislative intent of the Act
The Keralam government’s
decision to exclude the T1 and T2 sections of the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption
Bureau (VACB) from the purview of the Right To Information (RTI) Act goes
against the purpose of the legislation, say RTI activists and a few former Chief
Information Commissioners (CIC).
They fear that the decision will undermine transparency and accountability in the functioning of the government, the legislative intent of the Act.
“Section 24 (4) of the Act empowers State governments to exclude intelligence and security organisations from the ambit of the Act. The Central government shall list such organisations in Schedule 2 of the Act for exempting them. The Act specifically notes that information pertaining to allegations of corruption and human rights shall not be excludedfrom this section,” says Siby Mathews, a former CIC.
Successive governments, which found the provisions of the Act inconvenient to them, had been watering it down. The latest move of the State government will be the last nail in the coffin, he says.
Vinson M. Paul, another former CIC, feels the decision will enable the VACB Director to move any file to the two sections through an order and thus prevent the general public from accessing the information. The decision will be a deadly blow to the right of the general public to seek information and thus ensure probity and accountability in the government business. The government decision goes against the very spirit of the Act, he says.
Incidentally, defending the decision on the floor of the House, Home Minister Ramesh Chennithala said the Vigilance Director during the previous Left Democratic Front government had recommended exclusion of the sections on the ground that the possible disclosure of records relating to ongoing Vigilance investigations could jeopardise the probes.
However, Mr. Mathews points out that the provisions of the Act even otherwise bar the sharing of information on cases that are under investigation.
Officials point out that the two sections of the VACB were first excluded from the purview of the Act in 2016 and the exclusion continued for five years. It was later rescinded by the LDF government on January 9, 2022. Eight such State Intelligence and security organisations were thus excluded in the State, and the latest one was the original records of the Mullaperiyar dam lease deed agreements, including sketches, blueprints, and photos accompanying the original contract. The details were barred on the argument that the sharing of such information would be prejudicial to the security interests of the State.
RTI activists argue that the Act does not confer unfettered power on the State government to exclude information relating to allegations of corruption and human rights violations from the purview of the Act.
A blanket exemption granted, without ensuring statutory safeguards, will defeat the legislative objective of ensuring transparency and accountability in the functioning of public authorities. Courts had earlier recognised that information relating to allegations of corruption cannot be withheld merely by virtue of an exemption granted to the organisation concerned under Section 24. The notification is arbitrary and ultra vires and liable to be quashed before a court of law, they say.
They fear the decision will undermine transparency and accountability in the functioning of the government, the legislative intent of the Act
They fear that the decision will undermine transparency and accountability in the functioning of the government, the legislative intent of the Act.
“Section 24 (4) of the Act empowers State governments to exclude intelligence and security organisations from the ambit of the Act. The Central government shall list such organisations in Schedule 2 of the Act for exempting them. The Act specifically notes that information pertaining to allegations of corruption and human rights shall not be excludedfrom this section,” says Siby Mathews, a former CIC.
Successive governments, which found the provisions of the Act inconvenient to them, had been watering it down. The latest move of the State government will be the last nail in the coffin, he says.
Vinson M. Paul, another former CIC, feels the decision will enable the VACB Director to move any file to the two sections through an order and thus prevent the general public from accessing the information. The decision will be a deadly blow to the right of the general public to seek information and thus ensure probity and accountability in the government business. The government decision goes against the very spirit of the Act, he says.
Incidentally, defending the decision on the floor of the House, Home Minister Ramesh Chennithala said the Vigilance Director during the previous Left Democratic Front government had recommended exclusion of the sections on the ground that the possible disclosure of records relating to ongoing Vigilance investigations could jeopardise the probes.
However, Mr. Mathews points out that the provisions of the Act even otherwise bar the sharing of information on cases that are under investigation.
Officials point out that the two sections of the VACB were first excluded from the purview of the Act in 2016 and the exclusion continued for five years. It was later rescinded by the LDF government on January 9, 2022. Eight such State Intelligence and security organisations were thus excluded in the State, and the latest one was the original records of the Mullaperiyar dam lease deed agreements, including sketches, blueprints, and photos accompanying the original contract. The details were barred on the argument that the sharing of such information would be prejudicial to the security interests of the State.
RTI activists argue that the Act does not confer unfettered power on the State government to exclude information relating to allegations of corruption and human rights violations from the purview of the Act.
A blanket exemption granted, without ensuring statutory safeguards, will defeat the legislative objective of ensuring transparency and accountability in the functioning of public authorities. Courts had earlier recognised that information relating to allegations of corruption cannot be withheld merely by virtue of an exemption granted to the organisation concerned under Section 24. The notification is arbitrary and ultra vires and liable to be quashed before a court of law, they say.
.JPG)
.JPG)
