Lokayukta Special Police Not 'Intelligence & Security Organisation' Exempt From RTI Act : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Monday upheld a Madhya Pradesh High Court direction requiring the Special Police Establishment (SPE) of the Lokayukta Organisation to disclose information sought under the Right to Information Act, while striking down a 2011 State Government notification that exempted the SPE from the RTI regime.

A Bench of Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar held that the SPE, which investigates corruption-related offences involving public servants, cannot be classified as an "intelligence and security organisation" under Section 24(4) of the RTI Act, 2005, and therefore cannot be granted blanket exemption from the Act.

The case arose from an RTI application filed by Kamta Prasad Mishra, a Town Inspector in Katni who was implicated in a corruption trap case registered by the SPE in 2017. After the State Government granted sanction for his prosecution in 2020, Mishra sought details regarding the decision-making process behind the sanction order and related communications. His request was rejected by the authorities and later by the State Information Commission, which relied on Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act, exempting disclosure of information that could impede investigation or prosecution.

The Madhya Pradesh High Court subsequently ruled in Mishra's favour, observing that the investigation had already been completed and a chargesheet filed. It directed the authorities to furnish the requested information. The SPE challenged that decision before the Supreme Court.

Before the apex court, the SPE relied on a notification issued by the Madhya Pradesh General Administration Department on August 25, 2011, under Section 24(4) of the RTI Act. The notification purported to exclude the SPE and the State Bureau of Investigation of Economic Offences from the purview of the RTI Act.

Examining the validity of the notification, the Court held that Section 24(4) permits exemption only for "intelligence and security organisations" established by a State Government. Analysing the statutory framework governing the Lokayukta and the SPE, the Bench found that the SPE's jurisdiction is confined to investigating corruption offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act and certain offences under the Penal Code involving public servants. It does not perform intelligence or security functions.

"The SPE cannot be termed to be an 'intelligence and security' organisation for the purposes of Section 24(4) of the Act of 2005," the Court held.

The Bench further observed that the 2011 notification sought to extend the exemption beyond what was authorised by the RTI Act and therefore failed to conform to the parent statute. It held the notification, insofar as it excluded the SPE from the RTI Act, to be invalid and excessive in nature.

While dismissing the SPE's appeal, the Court maintained the High Court's direction to provide the information sought by Mishra. However, it clarified that it had not examined the validity of the notification in relation to the State Bureau of Investigation of Economic Offences, and therefore the notification would continue to operate to that extent.

Headnote

Right to Information Act, 2005 — Section 24(4) — Exclusion of Madhya Pradesh Special Police Establishment (SPE) from RTI Purview — Validity of Notification — SPE Not an "Intelligence and Security Organisation – The Supreme Court held that the Madhya Pradesh Special Police Establishment (SPE) cannot be classified as an "intelligence and security organisation" within the meaning of Section 24(4) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 - the State Government's Notification dated August 25, 2011, to the extent that it sought to completely exclude the SPE from the application of the RTI Act, is excessive, does not conform to the parent statute, and is bad in law - The sphere of operation of the SPE under the MP Special Police Establishment Act, 1947 is strictly confined to investigating specified offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and certain provisions of the Indian Penal Code (Sections 409, 420, and Chapter XVIII) - It serves as an investigative arm to assist the Lokayukt or Up-Lokayukt under Section 7 of the MP Lokayukt Evam Up-Lokayukt Adhiniyam, 1981, which only deals with complaints of corruption, misconduct, or malfeasance against public servants. Neither the Lokayukt nor the SPE is conferred with any jurisdiction or mandate relating to internal security or state/national intelligence - the principle of institutional parity with central intelligence or security organisations listed in the Second Schedule of the RTI Act does not apply. [Paras 13-22]

Subordinate Legislation — Suo Motu Jurisdiction of Constitutional Courts — Striking Down an Invalid Rule/Notification in the Absence of Explicit Challenge or Prayers in Pleadings - The absence of a specific prayer or explicit pleadings challenging the validity of a piece of subordinate legislation (such as a government notification) does not deter a Constitutional Court from evaluating and declaring it invalid if it patently violates fundamental rights or exceeds the authority conferred by the enabling parent statute – Held that while suo motu powers to strike down subordinate legislation must be exercised sparingly and with caution, a writ court as the "sentinel on the qui vive" has the plenary duty to guard against breaches of law and logic. When a party relies heavily on an invalid notification to deny statutory rights (like information under the RTI Act), the Court can test its vires, provided a full and fair opportunity is afforded to the State to defend the legislation - In the present case, since the Advocate General and Senior Counsel for the State of Madhya Pradesh were heard extensively and allowed to file written submissions to justify the Notification's validity, the lack of an initial challenge by the writ petitioner before the High Court was not fatal. [Relied on Bharathidasan University and Another v. All India Council for Technical Education and Others (2001 INSC 454); Union of India and Others v. Manjurani Routray and Others (2023 INSC 787); Paras 8-11]

Subordinate Legislation — Grounds of Challenge — Distinction from Plenary Legislation – Held that A piece of subordinate legislation does not enjoy the same degree of immunity as a statute enacted by a competent legislature. It can be validly challenged and struck down if it fails to conform to the parent statute under which it is made, exceeds the limits of authority conferred by the enabling Act, or is contrary to any other law of the land - The Supreme Court dismissed the Criminal Appeal filed by the Special Police Establishment - maintained the judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court directing the supply of information regarding the prosecution sanction process to the respondent - The Notification dated August 25, 2011, issued by the General Administration Department of Madhya Pradesh, was struck down to the extent that it excluded the SPE from the applicability of the RTI Act - The Supreme Court clarified that it did not examine the notification's validity regarding the State Bureau of Investigation of Economic Offences, which will continue to operate normally. [Relied on Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) Private Ltd. and Others v. Union of India and Others (1984 INSC 231); State of Tamil Nadu and Another v. P. Krishnamurthy and Others (2006 INSC 177); Para 15-22]

Case: Special Police Establishment v. Kamta Prasad Mishra & Ors.

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 629

Click here to read the judgment