Anti-Corruption Agency Is Not an Intelligence Body: Supreme Court Brings MP’s SPE Back Under RTI

Case at a Glance

The Supreme Court has struck down a 25 August 2011 notification of Madhya Pradesh's General Administration Department to the extent it excluded the Special Police Establishment (SPE) from the Right to Information Act, 2005. Because the SPE only investigates corruption and related offences, it is not an “intelligence and security” organisation that can be exempted under Section 24(4).

The first respondent, a police Town Inspector at Katni, was implicated by the SPE, Bhopal in a trap case under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988; the FIR was registered on 11 April 2017 and sanction for prosecution was granted on 20 May 2020. On 1 July 2020 he sought information under the RTI Act about how the sanction decision was made. The request was refused and the State Information Commission rejected his appeal under Section 8(1)(h).

On 20 December 2021 the Madhya Pradesh High Court held that, as the investigation was complete, Section 8(1)(h) could not be used, directed the information to be supplied within 30 days and imposed costs of Rs 5,000. Before the Supreme Court, the SPE relied on the 2011 notification under Section 24(4) to argue that the RTI Act did not apply to it at all.

The Key Question Before the Court

Can a State exempt its anti-corruption Special Police Establishment from the RTI Act by notifying it as an intelligence and security organisation?

What Counts as Intelligence and Security

The Court first held that it could examine the notification's validity even though the respondent had not challenged it, provided the State had a full opportunity to justify it (Bihar Rajya Dafadar Chaukidar Panchayat, Bharathidasan University, (2001) 09 SC CK 0066); it distinguished Manjurani Routray, (2023) 09 SC CK 0001. Relying on Indian Express Newspapers, (1984) 12 SC CK 0003 and P. Krishnamurthy, (2006) 03 SC CK 0068, it noted that delegated legislation must conform to the parent statute.

Section 24(4) allows exemption only for intelligence and security organisations established by the State, and even then not for information on corruption allegations. Comparing the organisations in the Second Schedule, the Court held that the SPE, which has jurisdiction only over offences under the 1988 Act and certain IPC offences, “cannot be termed to be an ‘intelligence and security’ organisation”. It rejected the State's argument of institutional parity and referred to the Allahabad High Court's decision in Dr. Nutan Thakur.

What the Court Actually Held

• The 25 August 2011 notification is struck down insofar as it excludes the SPE from the RTI Act.
• The SPE is not an intelligence and security organisation under Section 24(4).
• The High Court's judgment of 20 December 2021 directing supply of information was maintained.
• The notification was not examined as it applies to the State Bureau of Investigation of Economic Offences, and continues to that extent.

Why This Judgment Matters

• It limits the use of Section 24(4) to genuine intelligence and security bodies.
• It opens the Madhya Pradesh SPE to RTI applications, subject to the Act's other exemptions.
• It confirms courts can test subordinate legislation when the State has been heard.

What Should Advocates Take Away From the Judgment?

For RTI Applicants

• Challenge blanket Section 24(4) exclusions of investigating agencies that are not intelligence or security bodies.
• Remember that the other exemptions in Section 8 still apply.

For Government Counsel

• Notifications under Section 24(4) must fit the statutory description.
• Be ready to justify a notification's validity even if not directly challenged.

Key Takeaways

Frequently Asked Questions

It decides the Madhya Pradesh SPE's case; the reasoning on Section 24(4) may be relied on elsewhere.

The High Court held it inapplicable after investigation; the Supreme Court maintained that judgment.

The Court did not examine the notification as it applies to the State Bureau of Investigation of Economic Offences.

Conclusion