Kerala High Court Seeks State Affidavit on RTI Exemption for Vigilance Bureau Sections

State asked to clarify scope of exemption

A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Soumen Sen and Justice Syam Kumar V. M. sought clarification on the operation of an exemption from the Right to Information Act, 2005 for two sections of Kerala's Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau. The Court directed the State to file an affidavit identifying the categories of material falling within the T1 and T2 sections. The litigation raises a question about access to information relating to vigilance inquiries against public officials. At this stage, the Bench has sought factual clarification and has not quashed or upheld the challenged notification.

Notification and statutory framework

The Kerala government issued a notification on 22 October 2026 bringing the T1 and T2 sections of the bureau within an exemption framework under Section 24(4) of the RTI Act. That provision enables State governments, subject to statutory conditions, to specify intelligence and security organisations for exemption. The petitioners question whether the functions of the identified vigilance sections can lawfully be classified in that way. The text and legal effect of the notification are under judicial scrutiny; no final conclusion about its compatibility with Section 24(4) has been reached in the hearing reported.

Petitioners’ concerns about corruption records

The petitioners contend that the vigilance bureau is principally concerned with detecting and investigating corruption involving public servants rather than performing ordinary intelligence or security functions. They argue that the challenged notification could impede access to information about the receipt of complaints, preliminary verification, inquiries, closure reports and prosecution sanctions. They also allege that public information authorities have begun invoking the notification to refuse certain requests. Those allegations form part of the challenge and require assessment in light of the precise work assigned to the sections and the applicable RTI exceptions.

Existing RTI safeguards

The petitioners submit that the RTI Act already contains specific exemptions in Section 8 for categories of information requiring protection, including material whose disclosure could impede investigations or affect privacy and safety. They argue that the government should not use the organisational exemption to remove broad classes of anti-corruption records from scrutiny. The Court has not accepted that argument as a final holding. Instead, it recognised the need to understand which types of records are handled by T1 and T2, including any intelligence inputs and sensitive information connected with ongoing vigilance proceedings.

Precedent placed before the Court

During the hearing, the petitioners relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Special Police Establishment v. Kamta Prasad Mishra, concerning the classification of a corruption-investigation body under the RTI Act. The petitioners say the precedent limits the use of the intelligence-and-security exemption for agencies principally investigating corruption. They also referred to an earlier State notification that was reportedly withdrawn following litigation. The Bench heard these submissions, but its present order asks for details of the actual categories of information before determining the legal consequences of the cited precedent.

Significance for accountability and confidentiality

The dispute illustrates a recurring tension in transparency law. Citizens may have a legitimate interest in knowing how allegations of corruption against public officials are handled, while investigative bodies may need to protect sources, confidential intelligence, personal information and active inquiries. A legally sustainable answer may depend on the organisation's functions and the specific records involved rather than a broad label. The High Court's request for an affidavit is designed to clarify that factual foundation. It is not a declaration that every vigilance document must be disclosed or that every claim of confidentiality is justified.

What happens next

The connected petitions, including W.P.(PIL) Nos. 215 and 216 of 2026, are to be considered again after approximately three weeks. The State has been asked to explain the categories of information under the T1 and T2 sections. The petitioners may then address whether the notification falls within the statutory power under Section 24(4), and the government may defend its classification. The present procedural direction leaves the ultimate question open. Until the High Court rules, reporting should avoid describing the notification as already invalidated or treating the State's asserted exemption as conclusively lawful.

Case Details

Adv. P.K. Muralikrishnan v. State of Kerala and connected proceedings; W.P.(PIL) Nos. 215 and 216 of 2026; Kerala High Court.