Is the RTI Act applicable to all government authorities?

A question that comes up in a lot of people’s minds is that whether all government departments fall within the scope of the RTI Act. It would seem to be the case if anyone were to deduce a simple meaning and understanding the information law. However, the Act recognizes the need for certain exceptions, especially in matters of national security, integrity, and intelligence matters. Section 24 of the RTI Act specifies a framework for exempting certain intelligence and security organizations from its ambit, as listed in the Second Schedule of the Act.

SECTION 24 & SECOND SCHEDULE 

Section 24(1) of the Act excludes the application of the Act to intelligence and security organizations established by the Central Government, as listed in the Second Schedule. These organizations as in the second schedule include:

1. Intelligence Bureau. 
2. Research and Analysis Wing of the Cabinet Secretariat. 
3. Directorate of Revenue Intelligence. 
4. Central Economic Intelligence Bureau. 
5. Directorate of Enforcement. 
6. Narcotics Control Bureau. 
7. Aviation Research Centre. 
8. Special Frontier Force. 
9. Border Security Force. 
10. Central Reserve Police Force. 
11. Indo-Tibetan Border Police. 
12. Central Industrial Security Force. 
13. National Security Guards. 
14. Assam Rifles. 
15. Special Service Bureau 
16. Special Branch (CID), Andaman and Nicobar. 
17. The Crime Branch-C.I.D.-CB, Dadra and Nagar Haveli. 
18. Special Branch, Lakshadweep Police. 

While these organizations are exempt, the proviso contained in Section 24(1) further specifies that information concerning the allegations of corruption and human rights violations shall not be exempted. However, information of such sort can only be disclosed with the approval of the Central Information Commission, and 45 days can be availed for responding to such requests. A comprehensive judicial examination has been conducted regarding the exclusion delineated in Section 24. In cases of corruption and human rights violations, judicial authorities have consistently underscored the necessity of reconciling the obligation of transparency with the preservation of sensitive information.

KEY JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS

The Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the matter of CPIO, Directorate of Enforcement vs. Mr. Bimal Kumar Bhattacharya WP (C) No. 345/ 2018 dated 19.02.2018 wherein it was held as under: 

“6. Plainly, the impugned order cannot be sustained as it is contrary to the expressed language of Section 24(1) of the Act. Section 24(1) of the Act expressly excludes intelligence and security organizations specified in the Second Schedule of the Act from the purview of the Act. Admittedly, the Directorate of Enforcement is included in the Second Schedule to the Act and, thus, cannot be called upon to disclose information under the provisions of the Act. The only exception carved out from the exclusionary clause of Section 24(1) of the Act relates to information pertaining to allegations of corruption and human rights violation. Undisputedly, the information sought for by the petitioner cannot be categorized as such information. 

7. The aforesaid question has also been considered by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in CPIO Intelligence Bureau v. Sanjiv Chaturvedi : 242 (2017) DLT 542, wherein this Court held that an organisation specified in the Second Schedule of the Act was excluded from the purview of the Act. 8. In view of the above, the petition and the pending application are allowed and the impugned order is set aside. However, it is clarified that this would not preclude the respondent from instituting any proceedings that he may be advised against M/s Thomas Cook (India) Limited, if so, entitled in law.” 

This judgment reaffirmed that the exemption is unequivocal unless the specific proviso is triggered.

This interpretation underscores that even information from exempt organizations is not entirely beyond reach, provided it relates to corruption or human rights violations.

The Central Information Commission in Mr. Vihar Durve vc. CPIO & Dy. Director, Directorate of Enforcement (Foreign Exchange Management) CIC/DIREN/A/2018/144407-BJ+, CIC/DIREN/A/2018/144491-BJ, in its order dated 31/01/2020 underscored the following landmark observations: 

“The Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in a similar matter in Pr. DIT (Inv) (1) vs. Ashwani Kumar, W.P.(C) 11591/2017 dated 22.12.2017 stayed the decision of the Commission wherein a direction was issued to the Pr. DIT (Inv) (1) to inform the status of the Petition/Complaint dated 12.02.2016 addressed to PMO, within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of this order. In the said matter, the Hon’ble High Court had also directed the Department to file an affidavit unequivocally stating that the complaint in question is a matter being investigated by the DGIT (Inv.) and not any other office of the IT Authority.

The Hon’ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana in its decision in Palwinder Sondhi v. Central Information Commission and Ors. WO (C) No. 13211 of 2010 dated 28.07.2010 had held as under: Be that as it may, in the context of information sought, I find no fault with the reasons given in the impugned order for not supplying the information as the provisions of Section 24(1) of the Act clearly provide that nothing contained in the Act shall apply to the DRI, it being an organization established by the Central Government. Surely the information sought does not relate to corruption and human right violations as is evident from the nature of information sought. The order under the circumstances does not suffer from arbitrariness.”

The CIC in Prashant Gwaliory vs. CPIO, Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) : CIC/CBRUI/A/2018/626623 in its decision dated 31/12/2020 observed

“It is a well settled proposition that every RTI Applicant who utters the word ‘corruption’ or alleges corruption or violation of human rights does not become entitled to get information from public authorities exempted u/s 24(1) of the RTI Act. The onus of substantiating the allegation of corruption and human rights violation lies on the RTI Applicant and ‘perception’ is certainly no ground to agitate for right to information under the proviso to Section 24(1) of RTI Act.”

The justification for exempting specific organizations is based on the protection of national security, the maintenance of integrity in intelligence operations, and the facilitation of security services' procedures. 

At the same time, the proviso provides accountability in cases of wrongdoing or human rights breaches. However, it has been made clear and explicit through various judicial precedents that applicants have to categorically defend and argue the assertions they are making. The proviso’s ambit is not confined to certain circumstances but extends to any case of corruption or human rights violation involving exempted organizations.  The exception provided to authorities designated under the Second Schedule of the RTI Act emphasizes the careful balance between transparency and cautiousness. The responsibility lies on equally on the individuals and public authorities to ensure that a balance is maintained that takes care of the aspects of maintaining the sanctity of national security issues along with the public’s right to information.