Kerala exempts vigilance sections from information disclosure law

The Keralam government has exempted two confidential sections of the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau (VACB) from the Right to Information (RTI) Act, triggering allegations that the decision could shield corruption investigations involving political leaders and senior officials from public scrutiny.

The notification, disclosed on Friday, October 23, removes the bureau’s T1 and T2 sections from the transparency law’s ordinary disclosure requirements. These sections handle sensitive files, confidential communications and information concerning investigations against prominent public figures.

Under the arrangement, the Vigilance Director can determine which documents and investigation records should be transferred to the exempted sections. Information covered by the exemption would ordinarily become inaccessible through RTI applications, subject to statutory exceptions.

The decision has prompted criticism over the considerable discretion available to the bureau’s leadership in classifying records. Critics allege that politically sensitive investigations could be transferred to the confidential sections to prevent disclosure of information that might otherwise be available to citizens.

Vigilance authorities have defended the notification, maintaining that the exemption is consistent with provisions of the RTI Act governing intelligence and security organisations. They argue that confidential investigative material requires protection where disclosure could compromise sensitive information or the functioning of investigative agencies.

The controversy centres on Section 24 of the RTI Act, which permits state governments to exclude specified intelligence and security organisations from ordinary disclosure obligations through official notifications.

However, the provision does not establish an unconditional prohibition on access to every category of information. Allegations of corruption and human rights violations remain subject to statutory safeguards, including provisions governing disclosure and approval by the appropriate information commission.

The distinction assumes significance because the VACB primarily investigates corruption allegations against public servants. Whether particular functions of its confidential sections qualify for exemption as intelligence or security activities has previously been disputed before the Kerala High Court.

Questions have also emerged over whether transferring an investigation file to an exempted section should automatically determine its accessibility. Critics contend that the substance of the information and applicable statutory exceptions should remain relevant when authorities consider disclosure requests.

The notification marks another development in a longstanding dispute over transparency within Keralam’s principal anti-corruption investigation agency.

A similar exemption introduced in 2016 generated considerable political opposition and subsequently faced judicial scrutiny. The controversy concerned the bureau’s confidential T Branch, which handled sensitive matters involving senior political figures and government officials.

The Kerala High Court intervened after petitions challenged the decision, with opponents questioning whether an anti-corruption investigation unit could legitimately be classified as an intelligence or security organisation for the purposes of Section 24.

The government subsequently informed the High Court that it had rescinded the earlier exemption in January 2022. The court closed the proceedings without deciding the substantive legal questions raised by the petitioners.

The latest notification therefore restores restrictions affecting sections that had returned to the RTI framework following the withdrawal of the previous arrangement.

The immediate concern involves information relating to preliminary inquiries, confidential complaints and investigations concerning ministers, legislators and senior bureaucrats. Such records can become important when questions arise about whether corruption allegations have been examined properly.

The bureau’s position is that investigative confidentiality serves legitimate purposes, particularly where disclosure could expose sensitive intelligence or interfere with inquiries. Nevertheless, the extent of the protection available under the new notification remains a matter of contention.

Existing provisions of the RTI Act already allow public authorities to withhold certain information where disclosure could impede investigation, reveal protected sources or prejudice specified public interests. Those exemptions ordinarily require consideration of the information requested rather than a blanket exclusion of an entire notified organisation.

The new arrangement changes that framework for the designated vigilance sections by placing them within the special exemption mechanism available under Section 24.

The notification has also drawn attention to the responsibilities of public information officers handling applications concerning vigilance investigations. Requests involving records retained outside the exempted sections would continue to require examination under the applicable provisions of the law.

The VACB maintains an official RTI information facility identifying designated information officers and appellate authorities, alongside publicly available details about staffing, organisational arrangements and administrative procedures.

Those disclosure arrangements remain relevant to information held by other parts of the bureau, even as the notification changes the treatment of records assigned to its confidential sections.