Case at a glance: The Madras High Court has upheld an order directing Tamil Nadu's Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption to disclose enquiry reports to a retired DGP who was the subject of the enquiry. It held that the proviso to Section 24(4) of the RTI Act excludes information relating to corruption from the exemption, and that Section 8(1)(g) cannot be used as a blanket ground to withhold third-party names.
The DVAC is exempted from the RTI Act under Section 24(4) by a 2008 Government Order. A retired DGP applied for the DVAC enquiry reports about him, statements recorded and documents collected. The PIO and the appellate authority refused under Section 8(1)(g).
The State Information Commission directed disclosure within 45 days with names of two other officers masked. The State challenged that order.
The Key Question Before the Court
Can a State anti-corruption agency exempted under Section 24(4) refuse information relating to corruption allegations, and can Section 8(1)(g) be invoked to withhold all third-party names?
The Corruption Proviso
The Court held that the proviso to Section 24(4) excludes “information relating to allegations of corruption and human rights violations” from the exemption, so the request had to be tested against Section 8. Under Section 8(1)(g), the State produced no material that disclosure would endanger life or safety, and general claims about witness safety were not enough.
A name appearing in an enquiry file does not make that person a confidential source, so Section 8(1)(g) “cannot be invoked as a blanket ground”. Girish Ramchandra Deshpande and Canara Bank v. C.S. Shyam were distinguished because the applicant was the subject of the enquiry himself.
What the Court Actually Held
- The writ petition was dismissed, without costs.
- The Commission's order stands: the DVAC PIO must disclose the material with two officers' particulars masked, within 45 days.
Why This Judgment Matters
- It narrows the scope of exemptions for intelligence and vigilance bodies.
- It requires person-by-person justification under Section 8(1)(g).
- It helps public servants access enquiry material against them.
What Should Advocates Take Away From the Judgment?
For RTI Applicants
- Invoke the corruption proviso to Section 24(4) where relevant.
- Challenge blanket refusals under Section 8(1)(g).
For Public Authorities
- Justify each redaction with specific material on danger to life or safety.
Key Takeaways
- Corruption-related information is outside the Section 24(4) exemption.
- Section 8(1)(g) requires specific justification.
- Disclosure ordered with limited masking.
Frequently Asked Questions
No. Information relating to corruption allegations falls within the proviso to Section 24(4).
No. Section 8(1)(g) cannot be used as a blanket ground.
The enquiry material, with two officers' particulars masked, within 45 days.
Conclusion
The ruling reinforces transparency where corruption is concerned, even for exempt agencies.
Practical takeaway: When an exempt body refuses information, check whether the corruption proviso applies.