Can an anti-corruption agency hide behind secrecy laws to deny citizens access to information? The Madras High Court has given a firm answer: absolutely not. In a crucial ruling, the court held that probe agencies like Tamil Nadu’s Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption cannot claim a blanket exemption from the Right to Information Act when corruption allegations are involved.
What Did the Madras High Court Rule?
Justice Hemant Chandangoudar delivered the ruling while dismissing a petition filed by the Tamil Nadu state government. The state had challenged a direction issued by the Tamil Nadu State Information Commission.
The Information Commission had previously directed the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption to disclose records of an enquiry to a retired police officer. The High Court affirmed that the agency cannot use broad statutory exemptions to withhold information regarding corruption inquiries.
The court made it clear that while certain intelligence and security agencies are listed as exempt from ordinary RTI scrutiny, allegations of corruption and human rights violations always pierce that shield.
Background: Why a Retired DGP Knocked on RTI Doors
The dispute started with an RTI request filed in January 2021 by retired Director General of Police S.R. Jangid. The anti-corruption watchdog had previously carried out a detailed enquiry against him.
The enquiry was eventually concluded and officially closed in his favour. After receiving a clean chit, the retired officer sought copies of the enquiry reports dated December 30, 2013, and August 6, 2015.
He also asked for witness statements, queries raised by the state government, and documents gathered during the probe. Instead of granting the records, the agency denied the request entirely. The agency argued that the files were confidential and shielded under the law.
Jangid then approached the Tamil Nadu State Information Commission. In May 2024, the Commission ordered the agency to furnish the records after blacking out or masking the personal particulars of two other officers mentioned in the files. The state government refused to accept this decision and moved the Madras High Court.
The State’s Defence: Witness Safety, Huge Files, and Internal Manuals
Before the High Court, the Tamil Nadu government argued that disclosing internal enquiry records would jeopardize the safety of witnesses and expose confidential informants. The state invoked Section 8(1)(g) of the Right to Information Act, 2005.
The state also highlighted Rule 29 of the agency’s internal departmental manual. This administrative rule directs officers to treat all records collected during vigilance enquiries as strictly confidential.
Finally, the government raised a practical hurdle: the files were massive. It claimed that sifting through voluminous documents to conceal private details would impose an impractical administrative burden on the department.
What the Law Says: Section 24(4) and Section 8(1)(g) of the RTI Act
To understand the court’s reasoning, everyday citizens must understand how the Right to Information Act handles exemptions.
- Section 24(4) of the RTI Act: This section allows state governments to exempt intelligence and security agencies from standard RTI disclosures. However, it contains an unavoidable exception: information relating to allegations of corruption and human rights violations cannot be withheld.
- Section 8(1)(g) of the RTI Act: This provision protects information whose disclosure would endanger a person’s life or physical safety, or identify a confidential source of information.
The High Court scrutinized these provisions closely. Justice Chandangoudar pointed out that Section 24(4) cannot serve as a permanent barrier because the underlying matter explicitly concerned corruption allegations.
Addressing the safety defence under Section 8(1)(g), the court noted that the state had failed to present any real evidence showing a tangible threat. The court observed that a vague, generalized claim that witnesses might face risk is not enough to shut down an RTI application.
Why Internal Manuals Cannot Override Central Law
One of the most vital principles reiterated by the High Court relates to the conflict between executive rulebooks and statutory enactments. The state had relied on Rule 29 of its departmental manual to justify keeping the files secret.
The High Court firmly rejected this approach. Justice Chandangoudar ruled that an internal administrative guideline cannot invent an exemption that does not exist within the RTI Act itself.
An act passed by Parliament overrides departmental manuals and executive instructions. If the statute mandates transparency in corruption cases, an administrative manual cannot be cited to slam the door shut.
The Principle of Severability: Masking Sensitive Details
The court also threw out the state’s complaint about the sheer volume of documents. Under the RTI Act, public authorities must apply the rule of severability under Section 10.
Severability simply means that if an entire file cannot be handed over, the authority must separate and redact exempt portions—such as private names or identity markers—and disclose the rest. The High Court held that the hard work required to mask confidential details cannot turn accessible records into exempt ones.
At the same time, the court struck a balanced note. It clarified that applicants do not possess an absolute right to read every single paper in a file. Genuine private details belonging to unrelated third parties must still be masked, and appropriate third-party consultation procedures must be followed where applicable.
Why This Matters For You
This ruling reinforces a fundamental pillar of Indian democracy: public bodies must remain accountable to the law. Probe agencies hold enormous power over public servants and private citizens alike.
When an investigation ends, keeping entire files locked away under generalized fears of secrecy breeds arbitrariness. By insisting that corruption-related matters remain accessible under RTI, the Madras High Court has safeguarded transparency against institutional resistance.
Government departments cannot invent new shields using internal guidelines, nor can they dodge disclosure simply because redacting sensitive files requires effort.
Story reported by Barandbench. This article is BareLaw’s independent explanation and analysis.
📲 Get every BareLaw story on Telegram — simple legal news, 5 times a day, free: t.me/barelaw
