State Special Police Establishment Cannot Seek Exemption From Right to Information Act as Intelligence or Security Organization

The first respondent, a Town Inspector, was implicated by the Special Police Establishment (SPE) in a corruption trap case in 2017

Following the grant of sanction for prosecution in 2020, the respondent filed an RTI application seeking details of the decision-making process regarding said sanction

The State Information Commission rejected the request, citing the exemption under Section 8(1)(h) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act)

On appeal, the High Court of Madhya Pradesh directed the supply of information, noting that the investigation was complete

The Appellant (SPE) challenged this before the Supreme Court, relying on a State Government Notification dated 25.08.2011, which purportedly exempted the SPE from the RTI Act under Section 24(4)

1. Whether the Special Police Establishment (SPE) qualifies as an "intelligence and security organisation" under Section 24(4) of the RTI Act to justify a blanket exemption from the Act

2. Whether the State Government’s Notification dated 25.08.2011 was ultra vires Section 24(4) of the RTI Act

3. Whether information regarding the grant of sanction could be denied under Section 8(1)(h) after the investigation was complete

Section 24(4) of the RTI Act, 2005, which allows State Governments to exempt "intelligence and security organisations" from the Act’s purview via notification

Section 8(1)(h), which exempts information that would "impede the process of investigation"

Subordinate rules can be struck down if they exceed the limits of the enabling statute or fail to conform to the parent Act as held in Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India and State of Tamil Nadu v. P. Krishnamurthy

The doctrine from Bharathidasan University v. AICTE, allowing courts to suo motu ignore or invalidate a regulation that is patently outside its statutory banks, even in the absence of a specific prayer

The Court examined whether the SPE’s functions fell within the ambit of "intelligence and security." It noted that the Second Schedule of the RTI Act lists Central organisations like the ED, BSF, and NIA, which handle national security or high-level intelligence.

Conversely, the SPE, established under the M.P. Special Police Establishment Act, 1947, is restricted by Notification to investigating specific economic offences and corruption under the PC Act and the IPC.

The Court reasoned that "intelligence and security" does not encompass routine anti-corruption investigations into public servants.

Therefore, while Section 24(4) grants the State power to notify exemptions, such power is strictly confined to organisations established for intelligence/security purposes.

Since the SPE’s jurisdiction is limited to matters defined under Section 7 of the M.P. Lokayukt Evam Up-Lokayukt Adhiniyam, 1981, it does not meet the "intelligence and security" criteria.

Consequently, the 2011 Notification was found to be an excessive exercise of power.

The Court struck down the Notification dated 25.08.2011 to the extent that it sought to exclude the SPE from the RTI Act, declaring it bad in law and ultra vires the parent Act.

The Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the High Court's direction to supply the information.

It clarified that the notification remains operative for the State Bureau of Investigation of Economic Offences, as that was not examined in this case.