The Supreme Court of India allowed the appeal filed by the Special Police Establishment (SPE), Madhya Pradesh, while clarifying important principles regarding the applicability of the Right to Information Act, 2005 to anti-corruption investigating agencies.
The Court held that the Madhya Pradesh Special Police Establishment of the Lokayukt Organisation is not an ‘intelligence and security organisation’ and therefore cannot claim blanket exemption under Section 24(4) of the RTI Act.
Facts of the Case
The first respondent, Kamta Prasad Mishra, a Town Inspector, was implicated in a trap case under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Sanction for his prosecution was granted on 20.05.2020. He filed an RTI application seeking details of the decision-making process behind the grant of sanction and related communications.
The request was rejected citing exemptions under the RTI Act. The State Information Commission upheld the rejection. However, the Madhya Pradesh High Court allowed the writ petition and directed supply of the information, holding that investigation was complete and Section 8(1)(h) was not attracted.
The Special Police Establishment approached the Supreme Court challenging the High Court’s order, primarily relying on the Notification dated 25.08.2011 issued by the General Administration Department, Madhya Pradesh, which sought to exempt the SPE (Lokayukt) from the RTI Act under Section 24(4).
Key Legal Issues
- Whether the Madhya Pradesh Special Police Establishment (Lokayukt Organisation) qualifies as an ‘intelligence and security organisation’ under Section 24(4) of the RTI Act, 2005.
- Validity of the Notification dated 25.08.2011 exempting SPE from the RTI Act.
- Scope of exemption available under Section 8(1)(h) and Section 24 of the RTI Act in corruption cases.
Arguments by Parties
For the Appellant (SPE): Mr. Nishant Katneshwarkar argued that the Notification dated 25.08.2011 validly exempted the SPE from the RTI Act. Supplying the information would impede the investigation process.
For the First Respondent: Mr. Naveen Kumar Singh supported the High Court’s order, stating that investigation was complete and there was no impediment in supplying the information sought regarding sanction.
State of Madhya Pradesh: The Advocate General and Ms. Manisha Karia defended the Notification on the ground of institutional parity with the Lokayukt’s functioning.
Supreme Court’s Decision
A Division Bench comprising Justice Atul S. Chandurkar (authoring the judgment) examined the matter in detail and held as follows:
- The SPE under the Madhya Pradesh Special Police Establishment Act, 1947, read with the Madhya Pradesh Lokayukt Evam Up-Lokayukt Adhiniyam, 1981, is primarily an anti-corruption investigating agency. It does not deal with matters of ‘intelligence’ or ‘national/state security’.
- Organisations listed in the Second Schedule to the RTI Act (Central level) are distinctly those dealing with intelligence and security. The SPE does not fall in this category.
- The Notification dated 25.08.2011 issued under Section 24(4) of the RTI Act is beyond the scope of the parent provision and is therefore invalid.
- Even though the Notification was not directly challenged before the High Court, the Supreme Court exercised its jurisdiction to examine its validity as the issue arose during the hearing and full opportunity was given to the State to justify it.
- The first proviso to Section 24(4) itself clarifies that information relating to allegations of corruption cannot be excluded.
The Supreme Court ultimately allowed the appeal in part, set aside the High Court’s direction for supply of information to the extent it conflicted with ongoing proceedings, but clarified the legal position on the exemption.
This judgment is important for RTI jurisprudence in India. It reinforces that exemptions under Section 24 must be strictly construed and limited to genuine intelligence and security organisations. Anti-corruption bodies like the SPE (Lokayukt) cannot claim blanket immunity from transparency requirements, especially in matters of corruption.
The ruling strikes a balance between the need for effective investigation and the citizen’s right to information.
Case Details
Case Title: Special Police Establishment v. Kamta Prasad Mishra and Others
Case No.: Criminal Appeal No. 3743 of 2024
Citation: 2026 INSC 644
Court: Supreme Court of India
Coram: Justice Atul S. Chandurkar
Date of Judgment: 15th June 2026
Lawcutor 