Kerala High Court declines interim relief on vigilance exemption

The Kerala High Court on Wednesday declined to suspend the state government’s notification exempting two sections of the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau (VACB) from the Right to Information Act, while directing authorities to explain the scope of the exemption within three weeks.

A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Soumen Sen and Justice V. M. Syam Kumar refused interim relief sought through public interest petitions challenging the October 22 notification. The court ordered the government to submit an affidavit identifying the categories of information handled by the bureau’s T1 and T2 sections.

The judges specifically sought clarification on whether information concerning vigilance inquiries against public officials would fall within the exempted categories. The question emerged as a central issue during arguments over the government’s authority to restrict public access to corruption-related records.

The notification will remain operative pending further judicial consideration. The court has not determined whether the exemption itself is legally valid, leaving the substantive challenge open for examination after receiving the government’s response.

The petitions were filed by advocate P. K. Muralikrishnan, a former legal adviser to the Vigilance Bureau, and anti-corruption activist Joy Kaitharath, associated with the RTI Kerala Federation. They questioned the government’s decision to classify the two sections within the statutory exemption available to intelligence and security organisations.

The petitioners argued that the government had failed to establish sufficient grounds for treating the sections as intelligence or security organisations under Section 24(4) of the Right to Information Act, 2005.

They maintained that the bureau primarily investigates corruption allegations against public servants and that information about such proceedings cannot automatically be withheld merely because it is maintained by designated confidential sections.

Counsel representing the petitioners contended that citizens have a legitimate interest in knowing whether complaints against officials have been received, examined, investigated or closed. They argued that an excessively broad exemption could obstruct access to information concerning administrative accountability.

The court acknowledged that some material handled by the sections could be sensitive. The records identified during proceedings included intelligence inputs, search reports, vigilance inquiries and other information connected with investigations and officials.

However, the Bench considered it necessary to establish precisely which categories were covered before examining the legal consequences of the notification. Its direction requires the government to distinguish the functions and records maintained by the two sections.

The October 22 notification was issued under Section 24(4), which empowers state governments to exempt specified intelligence and security organisations from the RTI Act through publication in the Official Gazette.

That provision nevertheless contains safeguards relating to information concerning allegations of corruption and human rights violations. The statutory exceptions are significant because the disputed sections operate within an organisation responsible for investigating corruption allegations.

The petitioners sought to have the notification quashed and requested a declaration that the T1 and T2 sections do not qualify as intelligence or security organisations for the purposes of the provision.

Alternatively, they asked the court to ensure that the exemption could not prevent disclosure of information concerning the receipt, registration, verification, investigation, closure or outcome of corruption complaints against public servants.

Their submissions also questioned whether the government had disclosed adequate reasons or objective material supporting its decision. The petitions argued that the exemption could extend to concluded proceedings and administrative records that might not otherwise warrant confidentiality.

The T1 section handles confidential personnel records, sensitive files and certain high-level vigilance matters. Its responsibilities include maintaining annual confidential reports and handling confidential verification processes.

The T2 section deals with intelligence inputs, source information, vigilance officers’ weekly diaries and complaints received through dedicated channels. It also coordinates certain inspections and related confidential activities.

These functions formed part of the discussion surrounding the government’s decision to place the sections outside ordinary disclosure requirements.

The notification amended the existing framework governing organisations exempted from the RTI Act. The vigilance sections had been restored to the legislation’s coverage in 2022 before the government issued the October 22 order reversing that position.

The two petitions, registered as WP(PIL) 215 of 2026 and WP(PIL) 216 of 2026, were considered together because both challenge the same government notification.

The Bench has scheduled further consideration for November 18, allowing the state three weeks to place its affidavit before the court.