Can Lokayukta Special Police Claim Exemption From RTI as an Intelligence and Security Organisation?

One such exemption is contained in Section 24 of the RTI Act, which excludes specified “intelligence and security organisations” from the purview of the legislation. However, the scope of this exemption has often been debated, especially when State Governments attempt to extend it to agencies that primarily investigate corruption and misconduct by public officials.

In a significant judgment delivered on June 15, 2026, the Supreme Court in Special Police Establishment v. Kamta Prasad Mishra & Others (2026 INSC 644) addressed this issue and held that the Madhya Pradesh Special Police Establishment (SPE) functioning under the Lokayukta cannot be treated as an “intelligence and security organisation” for the purposes of Section 24(4) of the RTI Act. Consequently, the Court struck down a 2011 State Government notification that sought to exempt the SPE from the RTI regime.

The judgment is an important reaffirmation of transparency in anti-corruption institutions and places clear limits on the powers of governments to shield investigative agencies from public scrutiny.

Background of the Case

The dispute originated from a corruption case registered against Kamta Prasad Mishra, who was serving as a Town Inspector at Madhav Nagar Police Station in Katni, Madhya Pradesh.

The Special Police Establishment of the Lokayukta registered an FIR against him in April 2017 under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Subsequently, in May 2020, the State Government granted sanction for his prosecution.

Seeking to understand how the sanction for prosecution had been granted, Mishra filed an RTI application under Section 6(1) of the RTI Act on July 1, 2020. He requested details regarding the decision-making process and communications related to the grant of sanction.

The authorities denied the information. The matter eventually reached the Madhya Pradesh State Information Commission, which rejected his appeal on the ground that disclosure would be barred under Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act because it could impede investigation and prosecution.

Aggrieved by the Commission’s decision, Mishra approached the Madhya Pradesh High Court.

High Court’s Decision

The High Court observed that the investigation against Mishra had already been completed and a charge-sheet had been filed. Therefore, it held that Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act could not be invoked to deny information.

The Court directed the authorities to supply the information sought by Mishra and imposed costs. This order was challenged before the Supreme Court by the Special Police Establishment.

Issue

Before the Supreme Court, the SPE relied heavily on a notification dated August 25, 2011, issued by the Madhya Pradesh Government under Section 24(4) of the RTI Act.

The notification declared that the provisions of the RTI Act would not apply to:

1. Madhya Pradesh Special Police Establishment of the Lokayukta Organisation; and
2. State Bureau of Investigation of Economic Offences.

The State argued that the SPE was exempt from RTI obligations because it had been notified under Section 24(4), which permits State Governments to exempt “intelligence and security organisations” from the Act.

The central question before the Supreme Court, therefore, became:

Can the Lokayukta Special Police Establishment be classified as an “intelligence and security organisation” under Section 24(4) of the RTI Act?

Section 24 of the RTI Act

Section 24(1) excludes certain intelligence and security organisations established by the Central Government from the scope of the RTI Act.

These organisations are listed in the Second Schedule and include bodies such as:

• Enforcement Directorate (ED);
• Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF);
• Border Security Force (BSF);
• Central Industrial Security Force (CISF);
• National Investigation Agency (NIA); and others.

Similarly, Section 24(4) empowers State Governments to notify intelligence and security organisations established by them and exclude those organisations from the RTI Act.

However, the provision specifically refers to “intelligence and security organisations.” The Supreme Court noted that the exemption is not available to every investigative agency. The organisation must genuinely perform intelligence or security functions.

Supreme Court’s Analysis

Nature of Intelligence and Security Organisations

The Court examined the organisations included in the RTI Act’s Second Schedule.

It was observed that these bodies are fundamentally concerned with:

• National security;
• Intelligence gathering;
• Border protection;
• Counter-terrorism;
• Internal security; or
• Strategic enforcement activities.

For example:

• BSF protects national borders.
• CISF secures strategic industrial establishments.
• NIA investigates offences affecting national security.
• ED develops intelligence relating to financial crimes and foreign exchange violations.

These institutions have a direct nexus with intelligence and security concerns.

Functions of the Lokayukta SPE

The Court then examined the statutory framework governing the Lokayukta and the Special Police Establishment. The Madhya Pradesh Lokayukt Evam Up-Lokayukt Adhiniyam, 1981, was enacted to investigate allegations of corruption, abuse of office, misconduct, and disproportionate assets held by public servants.

The SPE functions as the investigative arm assisting the Lokayukta.

Its jurisdiction is confined to offences such as:

• Prevention of Corruption Act offences;
• Criminal breach of trust under Section 409 IPC [Section 316 (5)];
• Cheating under Section 420 IPC [Section 318 (4)]; and
• Certain offences relating to documents and property marks.

The Court found that these offences primarily relate to corruption and misuse of public office rather than intelligence or security matters.

Why the Exemption was Invalid

The Supreme Court emphasised that merely because an organisation investigates offences does not automatically make it an intelligence or security agency. The Supreme Court observed that neither the Lokayukta nor the SPE had any statutory mandate concerning:

• National security;
• Intelligence gathering;
• Counter-espionage;
• Border management;
• Internal security; or
• Strategic surveillance.

Their role is confined to anti-corruption investigations. Consequently, the State Government could not expand the scope of Section 24(4) through a notification and include agencies that did not satisfy the statutory description of “intelligence and security organisations.”

The Court held that the notification travelled beyond the parent statute and was therefore ultra vires.

Exercise of Suo Motu Constitutional Review

An interesting aspect of the judgment is that the validity of the 2011 notification had not been directly challenged before the High Court.

Ordinarily, courts refrain from examining the validity of legislation or subordinate legislation without a specific challenge.

However, the Supreme Court observed that the notification was being relied upon by the appellant to defeat the RTI claim. Since the issue directly arose during the proceedings and the State Government was given full opportunity to defend the notification, the Court considered it appropriate to examine its legality.

The Court referred to earlier decisions recognising the power of constitutional courts to invalidate subordinate legislation when it is clearly inconsistent with the parent statute.

Section 8(1)(h) and Ongoing Investigations

Although the principal focus of the judgment was Section 24(4), the Court also considered the argument based on Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act.

This provision exempts information whose disclosure would impede:

• Investigation;
• Apprehension; or
• Prosecution of offenders.

The High Court had found that the investigation against Mishra had already concluded and the charge-sheet had been filed.

The Supreme Court did not disturb this finding and maintained the High Court’s direction requiring disclosure of the information sought.

The ruling therefore reinforces the principle that once an investigation is complete, authorities cannot mechanically invoke Section 8(1)(h) to deny access to information.

Reliance on the Allahabad High Court Judgment

The Supreme Court also took note of a decision of the Allahabad High Court in Dr. Nutan Thakur v. State of Uttar Pradesh. In that case, the Uttar Pradesh Government had similarly attempted to exclude the Lokayukta from the RTI Act under Section 24(4).

The Allahabad High Court held that the Lokayukta was not an intelligence or security organisation and therefore could not be exempted under Section 24(4).

The Supreme Court found the reasoning persuasive and consistent with the statutory framework.

Final Decision

The Supreme Court ultimately held that:

• The Madhya Pradesh Special Police Establishment is not an intelligence and security organisation.
• The 2011 notification exempting the SPE from the RTI Act was inconsistent with Section 24(4).
• The notification exceeded the authority granted by the RTI Act.
• The High Court was correct in directing disclosure of the information sought by the respondent.

Accordingly, the Court struck down the notification insofar as it exempted the SPE from the RTI Act. However, it clarified that it was not examining the validity of the notification with respect to the State Bureau of Investigation of Economic Offences. Therefore, the notification would continue to operate for that agency until separately challenged.

Click Here to Read the Official Judgment

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s ruling in Special Police Establishment v. Kamta Prasad Mishra & Others is a landmark decision on the interpretation of Section 24 of the RTI Act. By holding that the Lokayukta Special Police Establishment is not an “intelligence and security organisation,” the Court has drawn a clear distinction between anti-corruption investigative bodies and agencies entrusted with intelligence or national security functions.

The judgment reinforces the principle that transparency is the norm and secrecy is the exception. Government agencies cannot escape RTI obligations merely by performing investigative functions. Unless an organisation genuinely falls within the category of intelligence and security institutions contemplated by Section 24, it must remain answerable under the RTI framework.

In doing so, the Supreme Court has strengthened both the right to information and the broader constitutional values of openness, accountability, and good governance.