RTI Section 24: Tamil Nadu Exempts, Then Restores, Its Law and Order Department

🗞️ Why in News The Tamil Nadu government on 27 September 2026 revoked a notification, G.O. Ms. No. 57 of its Human Resources Management Department dated 21 September 2026, that had specified the Public (Law and Order) Department as an “intelligence and security organisation” under Section 24(4) of the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005, taking it outside the Act. The order was withdrawn within hours of becoming public, after criticism from transparency groups and parties supporting the government. 28 September is the International Day for Universal Access to Information.

What Happened

• 21 September. A government order, issued in the name of the Governor, declared the Public (Law and Order) Department an intelligence and security organisation “for which the said Act shall not apply”.
• 27 September, morning. The order surfaced publicly. The anti-corruption group Arappor Iyakkam, CPI(M) MP Su. Venkatesan and VCK president Thol. Thirumavalavan (both parties support the government) called for its withdrawal.
• 27 September, same day. The government of Chief Minister C. Joseph Vijay announced that G.O. Ms. No. 57 “stands revoked”.

Why the department mattered. Its files are not intelligence dossiers. According to The Indian Express, it handles inquiry reports on custodial deaths, police torture and police firing; references from the National Human Rights Commission; communal and caste clashes; withdrawal of cases against protesters; preventive detention under the National Security Act and COFEPOSA, including detainees’ representations and habeas corpus petitions; and sanctions to prosecute for allegedly defamatory speech and reporting. These are the areas where citizens most need to see how State power is used.

Section 24 Explained

Examples in the Second Schedule: the Intelligence Bureau, the Research and Analysis Wing, the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, the Enforcement Directorate, the Narcotics Control Bureau and central armed police forces such as the BSF, CRPF and CISF. The CBI was added in June 2011, a move criticised because it is an investigating agency.

The Test the Supreme Court Has Set

The legal context: in Special Police Establishment v. Kamta Prasad Mishra (15 June 2026, Justices J.K. Maheshwari and Atul S. Chandurkar), the Supreme Court struck down a 2011 Madhya Pradesh notification that had exempted the Lokayukta’s Special Police Establishment under Section 24(4). The SPE investigates offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, so it “cannot be termed to be an ‘intelligence and security’ organisation”. The Court looked at the nature of an organisation’s statutory functions, not the label a government gives it, and noted that the Second Schedule bodies are “specifically concerned with intelligence and security”.

Applied to Tamil Nadu, the test would have asked whether a secretariat department that processes custodial-death inquiries, detention files and prosecution sanctions is, by its functions, an intelligence or security organisation. That question now does not arise, but it will for any State that tries a similar notification.

The Wider RTI Picture

Other exemptions to keep apart from Section 24. Section 8(1) lists categories of information that may be withheld (for example, sovereignty and security, cabinet papers, fiduciary information), subject to the public-interest override in Section 8(2). Section 24 takes whole organisations out of the Act. Section 4 obliges every public authority to disclose information proactively.

International Day for Universal Access to Information (28 September). Proclaimed by UNESCO in 2015 and adopted by the UN General Assembly in 2019. It is linked to Sustainable Development Goal 16, whose target 16.10 is public access to information and protection of fundamental freedoms.

Analysis

1. The exemption is for organisations, not subjects. Section 24 was written for agencies whose core work is intelligence and security. Using it for a department whose work is accountability-heavy inverts its purpose.

2. The proviso is a safeguard, not a substitute. Even exempt bodies must disclose information on corruption and human rights violations. But applicants face a longer route (45 days, prior approval of the Commission), and the burden shifts to showing that a request falls within the proviso.

3. Policing needs more scrutiny, not less. A former Director General of Police quoted by The Indian Express put it plainly: “policing requires greater public scrutiny, not less”. Custodial deaths and preventive detention are where Article 21 is most at risk.

4. Reversal shows public reason at work. The speed of the withdrawal, prompted by civil society and allied parties, is itself a lesson in how transparency is defended in a democracy.

5. Cumulative dilution is the larger worry. Taken with the 2019 amendment and the 2023 change to Section 8(1)(j), expanding Section 24 lists would narrow a law that the Supreme Court has linked to the right to know under Article 19(1)(a).

UPSC Relevance

GS Paper 2. Transparency and accountability; e-governance and citizens’ charters; statutory, regulatory and quasi-judicial bodies (Information Commissions); important aspects of governance. GS Paper 4. Probity in governance; the Right to Information; information sharing and transparency in government.

A question worth preparing. “Exemptions, amendments and vacancies have weakened the Right to Information Act from within.” Critically examine. (250 words)

The Mains framing. Start with the RTI Act as a tool of accountability grounded in Article 19(1)(a). Explain Section 24 and its proviso, and the functional test in Kamta Prasad Mishra. Add the 2019 amendment and the DPDP change to Section 8(1)(j). Balance with legitimate security needs. Conclude with safeguards: narrow, reasoned notifications laid before the legislature; functional scrutiny by courts; and strong, independent Information Commissions.

📌 Facts Corner, Knowledgepedia

Prelims, statement-ready facts:

• Section 24(1): Second Schedule intelligence and security organisations of the Centre are outside the RTI Act.
• Section 24(4): a State may exempt intelligence and security organisations it has established, by notification laid before the State Legislature.
• Proviso: information on corruption and human rights violations cannot be withheld; human rights information needs the Commission’s approval, within 45 days.
• SPE v. Kamta Prasad Mishra (15 June 2026): the MP Lokayukta’s SPE is not an intelligence and security organisation.
• CBI added to the Second Schedule in June 2011.
• DPDP Act, Section 44(3): amended RTI Section 8(1)(j); in force from November 2025.
• 28 September: International Day for Universal Access to Information (UNESCO 2015; UNGA 2019).

Prelims, the traps:

• Section 24 exempts organisations; Section 8 exempts categories of information.
• Exempt bodies must still disclose information on corruption and human rights violations.
• A State can exempt only organisations it has established, not central agencies.

Mains, arguments and keywords:

• Right to know under Article 19(1)(a); functional test over labels; accountability of police; dilution by exemption.
• Keywords: Second Schedule, proviso, functional test, proactive disclosure, SDG 16.10.

Interview, be ready for:

• “Should the police be exempt from RTI for security reasons?” Protect genuinely sensitive operational intelligence through Section 8, but keep accountability records open; an organisation-wide exemption is the wrong tool.

Sources: The Indian Express, Right to Information Act, 2005 (India Code), Supreme Court Observer, SPE v. Kamta Prasad Mishra, Verdictum

Source: RTI Section 24: Tamil Nadu Exempts, Then Restores, Its Law and Order Department — Ujiyari.com | Free UPSC & State PCS Current Affairs