The Supreme Court has ruled that the Special Police Establishment (SPE) functioning under the Madhya Pradesh Lokayukta cannot claim immunity from the Right to Information (RTI) Act by portraying itself as an “intelligence and security organisation.” In a significant decision reinforcing transparency in anti-corruption investigations, the Court upheld a High Court order directing disclosure of information sought under the RTI Act and invalidated a State Government notification that had shielded the agency from public scrutiny.
A Bench comprising Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar concluded that the SPE’s role is limited to investigating corruption-related offences involving public servants. Such functions, the Court said, do not place the agency within the category of intelligence or security organisations that can be exempted under Section 24(4) of the RTI Act.
The dispute stemmed from an RTI application filed by Kamta Prasad Mishra, a Town Inspector from Katni who had been named in a corruption trap case registered by the SPE in 2017. After the State Government granted sanction for his prosecution in 2020, Mishra sought records and communications relating to the decision-making process behind the sanction order.
Authorities declined the request, and the State Information Commission also refused relief, citing Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act, which permits withholding information if disclosure could obstruct an investigation or prosecution.
However, the Madhya Pradesh High Court later held that the investigation had already concluded and a chargesheet had been filed, removing the basis for denying access to the information. The Court directed the authorities to furnish the records sought by Mishra.
Challenging that decision, the SPE approached the Supreme Court and relied on a notification issued by the State Government on August 25, 2011. The notification purported to exclude both the SPE and the State Bureau of Investigation of Economic Offences from the RTI framework.
The Supreme Court closely examined the scope of Section 24(4), which allows State Governments to exempt only those organisations that genuinely perform intelligence or security functions. Looking at the statutory powers and responsibilities of the Lokayukta’s police wing, the Bench found no basis to classify the SPE within that category.
The Court observed that the agency’s mandate is confined to probing offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act and certain criminal offences involving public servants. It neither gathers intelligence nor performs security-related duties.
On that reasoning, the Bench held that the State Government had exceeded the authority granted by the RTI Act while issuing the 2011 notification. Since the exemption granted to the SPE went beyond the limits prescribed by Parliament, the notification could not survive judicial scrutiny.
The appeal filed by the SPE was consequently dismissed, and the direction to provide the requested information was allowed to stand.
At the same time, the Court clarified that it had not examined the validity of the notification insofar as it related to the State Bureau of Investigation of Economic Offences. As a result, the exemption continues to operate for that agency unless challenged and decided separately.
The ruling underscores that exemptions under the RTI Act must be narrowly interpreted and cannot be expanded through executive action to cover bodies that do not perform intelligence or security functions.
