Lokayukta Police not exempt from disclosure of information under RTI Act 2005 – SC

Lokayukta Police not an ‘intelligence and security’ organisation  and hence not exempt from disclosure of information under RTI Act 2005

In a recent judgment, Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that Lokayukta Police not an ‘intelligence and security’ organisation  and hence not exempt from disclosure of information under RTI Act 2005.

ABCAUS Case Law Citation:
5169 (2026) (06) abacus.in SC

Important Case Laws relied upon by Parties:
Dr. Nutan Thakur vs State of U.P., through Principal Secretary, Department of Vigilance

In the instant case, the issue before the Hon’ble Supreme Court was whether the Special Police Establishment (SPE) constituted under Section 2(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Special Police Establishment Act, 1947 is entitled to exemption from the application of the RTI Act of 2005.

Established in 1947 SPE serves as the investigative arm of the state’s Lokayukta Office. Its primary mandate is to combat corruption, bribery, and offenses affecting public administration by government servants.

The respondent Police Inspector was implicated by the SPE under the Prevention of Corruption Act (PC Act), 1988 in a trap case. As a result, an FIR was registered and the State sanction granted sanction for his prosecution.

The respondent sought information with regard to the decision making process in the grant of sanction and thus moved an application under Section 6(1) of the RTI Act 2005 (RTI Act) which was turned down. State Information Commission rejected the appeal holding that the respondent was not entitled to be supplied the said information in view of Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act in view of Notification issued by the State Govt. under Section 24(4) of the RTI Act exempting the SPE from the purview of the RTI Act for disclosing the information.

The Division Bench of the Hon’ble High Court held the investigation in the criminal proceedings was complete and therefore the respondent could not be denied such information by relying upon Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act. The SPE was, accordingly, directed to supply the information sought by the respondent.

The SPE took the matter before Hon’ble Supreme Court. It was contended that the Lokayukt was a statutory investigative authority vested with plenary powers of enquiry and its jurisdiction extended to allegations of corruption, misconduct and malfeasance by a public servant. The SPE functioned as an investigative arm under the superintendence of the Lokayukt. It was in this backdrop that the power conferred by Section 24(4) of the RTI Act had been exercised and the Notification had been issued.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that examination was required as to whether the SPE is an ‘intelligence and security’ organisation, given the nature of offences it can investigate. To put it differently, whether the SPE can seek exemption from the application of the RTI Act on the ground that it is an ‘intelligence and security’ organisation?

The Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that absence of a prayer seeking declaration of invalidity of a piece of subordinate legislation by itself would not deter the Court from testing its validity. Such issue can be examined but after granting opportunity to the concerned authority to justify its validity.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court further noted that it is well settled that a piece of subordinate legislation does not carry the same degree of immunity that is enjoyed by a statute passed by a competent legislature. Besides the grounds on which plenary legislation can be challenged, subordinate legislation can also be challenged on the ground that it fails to conform to the statute under which it is made or it exceeds the limits of authority conferred by the enabling statute.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court also observed that that organisations referred to in the Second Schedule to the Act of 2005 are specifically concerned with ‘intelligence’ and ‘security’, having been constituted by the Central Government with that object in mind. On the other hand, the SPE has been clothed with limited jurisdiction to investigate offences punishable under the PC Act 1988, Sections 409, 420 and Chapter XVIII of the Penal Code.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court noted the decision of Allahabad High Court whereby it was held that the office of Lokayukt was not concerned with the issues of ‘intelligence and security’.  It was, thus, held that the Notification issued by the Uttar Pradesh State Government by which the office of Lokayukt and UpLokayukt was sought to be brought out of the purview of the Act of 2005 was illegal and it travelled beyond the provisions of Section 24(4) of the RTI Act.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that jurisdiction of the SPE is limited. This is for the reason that the Lokayukt has been conferred a limited jurisdiction to enquire into an ‘allegation’ as defined by Section 2(b) when made against a public servant. It is, thus, clear that insofar as issues of ‘intelligence’ and ‘security’ are concerned, neither the Lokayukt nor the Up-Lokayukt has been conferred jurisdiction to make any enquiry.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the statutory scheme under which the SPE stands constituted coupled with the jurisdiction conferred on the Lokayukt or Up-Lokayukt clearly indicate that the SPE cannot be termed to be an ‘intelligence and security’ organisation when it assists the Lokayukt or Up-Lokayukt in matters specified by Section 7.

Accordingly, the Hon’ble Supreme Court struck down the Notification dated 25.08.2011 seeking to exclude the SPE from the applicability of the provisions of the RTI Act. It was clarified that their Lordships had not examined the applicability of the said Notification vis-a-vis the State Bureau of Investigation of Economic Offences and therefore, the said Notification shall continue to operate to that extent. 

Download Full Judgment Click Here >>

• Which ITRS are relevant for assessing income of deceased person under MV Act 1988
• CBDT condones delay in filing Form No. 10AB
• SC express concern over AI generated judgments/paragraphs escaping scrutiny by NCLT/NCLAT
• ICAI to take disciplinary action for quoting very low & incommensurate fee by Chartered Accountants
• NSDL latest e-TDS TCS RPU Version 6.00 and FVU 9.5 RPU V 1.0 from Tax Year 2026-27 – Download