Supreme Court strikes down RTI exemption for Madhya Pradesh Lokayukt police wing
A division bench held the Madhya Pradesh SPE is not an intelligence and security organisation, voiding the 2011 RTI exemption notification and upholding disclosure of sanction records.
The Supreme Court has held that the Madhya Pradesh Special Police Establishment of the Lokayukt Organisation is not an “intelligence and security” organisation, and so cannot claim exemption from the Right to Information Act, 2005. A division bench of Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar, in a judgment delivered on 15 June 2026, struck down a State Government notification dated 25.08.2011 that had purported to take the wing out of the RTI Act under Section 24(4). The Court maintained the order of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh directing supply of information sought by a former Town Inspector about the sanction granted for his prosecution. The appeal filed by the Special Police Establishment was dismissed.
How the dispute reached the Court
The first respondent, Kamta Prasad Mishra, was serving as Town Inspector at Police Station Madhav Nagar, Katni, when he was implicated by the Special Police Establishment, Bhopal under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 in a trap case. A First Information Report was registered on 11.04.2017.
The Home Department of the State Government granted sanction for his prosecution on 20.05.2020. Seeking to understand the decision-making process behind that sanction, he moved an application dated 01.07.2020 under Section 6(1) of the RTI Act.
The request was refused. The State Information Commission rejected his appeal on 16.12.2020, holding he was not entitled to the information under Section 8(1)(h) of the Act. He then approached the High Court of Madhya Pradesh.
The Division Bench of the High Court found that the investigation was complete and that information could not be denied by relying on Section 8(1)(h). It directed the SPE to supply the information sought, quashing the Public Information Officer's order and the Commission's order, and imposed costs of Rs. 5,000. The SPE brought the present appeal.
The notification that surfaced before the Supreme Court
Before the Supreme Court, the SPE relied on a notification dated 25.08.2011 issued by the General Administration Department under Section 24(4) of the RTI Act. The notification stated the RTI Act would not apply to cases under investigation by the Madhya Pradesh Special Police Establishment of the Lokayukt Organisation and the State Bureau of Investigation of Economic Offences.
The State, represented by Senior Advocate Ms. Manisha Karia and Advocate General Mr. Prashant Singh, argued that the notification had not been challenged in the writ petition and that its validity could not be examined for the first time. It also pressed the principle of institutional parity, describing the Lokayukt as a statutory investigative authority and the SPE as its investigative arm.
Examining a notification not challenged below
The Court accepted that the notification was not specifically challenged in the writ petition and that the SPE had not relied on it to support the Commission's order. It nonetheless held that the absence of a prayer for declaration of invalidity would not deter it from testing the validity of subordinate legislation, after granting the concerned authority an opportunity to defend it.
It referred to Bihar Rajya Dafadar Chaukidar Panchayat (Magadh Division) v. State of Bihar, Bharathidasan University v. All India Council for Technical Education, and Union of India v. Manjurani Routray. The Court noted that the issue was a pure question of interpretation requiring no factual adjudication, and that the State had been given full opportunity, including the filing of written submissions, to justify the notification.
On the standards for challenging delegated legislation, the Court cited Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India and State of Tamil Nadu v. P. Krishnamurthy, recognising that subordinate legislation may be questioned for failing to conform to its parent statute or exceeding the authority conferred.
Why the SPE is not an intelligence and security organisation
The Court read Section 24(1) and Section 24(4), both of which use the phrase “intelligence and security organisations.” That expression is not defined in the Act. The Court examined the organisations listed in the Second Schedule established by the Central Government — the Directorate of Enforcement, the Central Reserve Police Force, the Border Security Force, the Central Industrial Security Force and the National Investigation Agency — to identify the character such bodies share.
Against that, the SPE under the Madhya Pradesh Special Police Establishment Act, 1947 has jurisdiction limited to offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and Sections 409, 420 and Chapter XVIII of the Penal Code. Under the Madhya Pradesh Lokayukt Evam Up-Lokayukt Adhiniyam, 1981, the Lokayukt enquires only into an “allegation” against a public servant as defined in Section 2(b), tied to corruption and related misconduct.
The Court held that neither the Lokayukt nor the Up-Lokayukt is conferred jurisdiction over matters of intelligence or security, and that the SPE, when assisting them, cannot be treated as an intelligence and security organisation. The plea of institutional parity was rejected.
The Court also referred to the Allahabad High Court decision in Dr. Nutan Thakur v. State of U.P., which had struck down a similar 2012 notification exempting the Uttar Pradesh Lokayukt agency from the RTI Act.
Order
The Court held that the notification dated 25.08.2011, to the extent it seeks to exclude the SPE from the RTI Act under Section 24(4), is bad in law and excessive, as it does not conform to that provision. The notification was struck down to that extent.
The Court clarified that it had not examined the notification's applicability to the State Bureau of Investigation of Economic Offences, and that the notification continues to operate to that extent.
The judgment of the High Court dated 20.12.2021 in Writ Petition No. 1575 of 2021 was maintained. The criminal appeal was dismissed and pending interlocutory applications were disposed of.