Special Police Establishment Not An 'Intelligence & Security Organisation', State Cannot Exempt It From RTI Act: Supreme Court

"The SPE having been conferred jurisdiction only to investigate offences punishable under the Act of 1988, Sections 409, 420 and Chapter XVIII of the Penal Code, it cannot be termed to be an ‘intelligence and security’ organisation for the purposes of Section 24(4) of the Act of 2005, " Supreme Court, in a significant ruling, held that the Special Police Establishment (SPE) of Madhya Pradesh does not qualify as an "intelligence and security organisation" and therefore cannot be exempted from the purview of the Right to Information Act, 2005.

A bench of Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar observed that the State Government’s notification seeking to exclude the SPE from RTI obligations was "bad in law" and "excessive in nature," as the organisation’s primary function is the investigation of corruption cases rather than national security or intelligence.

The first respondent, while serving as a Town Inspector, was implicated by the SPE in a trap case under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act). Following the grant of sanction for his prosecution, he sought information under Section 6(1) of the RTI Act regarding the decision-making process behind the sanction. While the State Information Commission denied the request citing exemptions under Section 8(1)(h), the Madhya Pradesh High Court directed the supply of information, noting that the investigation was already complete. The SPE appealed this direction before the Supreme Court, relying on a 2011 State Notification that exempted it from the RTI Act.

The primary question before the court was whether the SPE could be treated as an ‘intelligence and security’ organisation for the purposes of Section 24(4) of the RTI Act. The court also examined whether it could suo motu test the validity of the 2011 Notification issued by the Madhya Pradesh General Administration Department, even if it wasn't specifically challenged in the High Court.

Court Asserts Power To Examine Validity Of Subordinate Legislation Suo Motu

The Court first addressed the procedural hurdle regarding the validity of the Notification dated August 25, 2011. While the respondent had not specifically challenged the notification in the High Court, the Supreme Court noted that constitutional courts possess the plenary power to declare a subordinate legislation invalid if it is manifestly contrary to parent statutes or fundamental rights.

The bench emphasized that the exercise of suo motu jurisdiction is permissible when a piece of subordinate legislation patently lacks legal sanction. Referring to the precedent in Bihar Rajya Dafadar Chaukidar Panchayat v. State of Bihar, the Court noted that it is the duty of writ courts to deliver justice by declaring such legislation void to safeguard the rights of individuals.

"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."

Defining The Scope Of 'Intelligence And Security Organisations'

The Court meticulously analyzed Section 24 of the RTI Act, which allows the Central and State governments to exempt certain "intelligence and security organisations" from the Act’s transparency requirements. The bench perused the Second Schedule of the RTI Act, which lists organisations like the Intelligence Bureau, RAW, Directorate of Enforcement, and the National Investigation Agency.

The bench observed that all organisations listed in the Schedule are specifically concerned with national sovereignty, internal security, or border protection. In contrast, the SPE was constituted under the Madhya Pradesh Special Police Establishment Act, 1947, primarily to investigate corruption and economic offences. The Court held that "intelligence" in the context of Section 24 refers to national security intelligence, not the routine collection of information for criminal investigations.

"It is clear that organisations referred to in the Second Schedule are specifically concerned with ‘intelligence’ and ‘security’, having been constituted with that object in mind."

SPE Is An Investigative Arm For Corruption, Not A Security Agency

The Supreme Court highlighted that the SPE functions under the superintendence of the Lokayukt as per the Madhya Pradesh Lokayukt Evam Up-Lokayukt Adhiniyam, 1981. Its jurisdiction is limited to investigating allegations of corruption, misconduct, and malfeasance against public servants. The bench noted that neither the Lokayukt nor the SPE has been conferred with the jurisdiction to handle matters pertaining to the security of the State.

The Court reasoned that if the State's argument for "institutional parity" were accepted, every investigative wing of the police could claim exemption from RTI. This would defeat the very object of the RTI Act, which seeks to promote transparency and accountability. The bench clarified that while Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act provides a specific exemption for information that "impedes investigation," a blanket exemption under Section 24(4) is reserved only for a distinct class of security agencies.

"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 of the Act of 1981."

Striking Down The 2011 Notification As Excessive

Concluding its analysis, the Court struck down the Notification dated August 25, 2011, to the extent that it sought to exclude the SPE from the RTI Act. The bench held that the State Government had exceeded its authority under Section 24(4) by attempting to shield a corruption-investigating agency from public scrutiny.

The Court maintained the High Court’s direction to supply the requested information to the respondent. However, it clarified that the notification would continue to operate regarding the State Bureau of Investigation of Economic Offences, as that aspect was not specifically examined in this appeal.

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal filed by the Special Police Establishment. By striking down the exemption notification, the Court reaffirmed that transparency is the rule and exemption is a narrow exception, particularly for agencies tasked with investigating corruption among public servants.

Date of Decision: June 15, 2026