The central objection concerns the government’s reliance on Section 24(4) of the RTI Act, which permits exemptions for specified intelligence and security organisations. The notification instead identifies T1 and T2, two administrative sections within the VACB, raising the unresolved question of whether internal units can independently qualify as organisations under the statute.
Parliament authorised narrowly defined institutional exemptions, not an unrestricted power to designate particular desks as inaccessible whenever their work becomes politically sensitive. The government must therefore establish that the selected units satisfy the statutory description, rather than merely asserting that their records are confidential.
Former State Information Commissioner A A Hakkim has questioned both the legal foundation and the procedure followed. He has emphasised that even an organisation validly exempted under Section 24 cannot withhold information concerning allegations of corruption or human rights violations solely because of that exemption.
The statutory wording is explicit. Section 24(4) preserves access to information pertaining to such allegations, while imposing a separate approval procedure and a 45-day disclosure period for human rights complaints. Any interpretation treating the notification as a complete prohibition on corruption-related requests would conflict with that protection.
Another issue is legislative oversight. Section 24(5) requires every notification issued under the state exemption provision to be laid before the legislature. Hakkim has questioned whether this requirement was fulfilled, particularly given the Assembly’s sitting schedule. Non-compliance has been alleged, but the precise procedural status requires confirmation from legislative records.
The notification also exposes a practical vulnerability: the power to determine which files reach the protected sections. If the VACB director can transfer politically sensitive records into T1 or T2, critics fear that classification could become an administrative substitute for demonstrating a lawful reason to refuse disclosure.
Such transfers would not automatically defeat the corruption exception. Nevertheless, applicants could face greater difficulty identifying where records are held, challenging refusals and securing timely decisions. That distinction between formal legal rights and their practical enforceability lies at the centre of the controversy.
RTI activist M T Thomas has indicated that he intends to challenge the order before the Kerala High Court. His objection centres on the attempt to exempt selected sections rather than an entire qualifying organisation, and on the scope for discretionary movement of files.
Existing provisions already protect genuinely sensitive material. Section 8(1)(h), for example, allows information to be withheld where disclosure would impede investigation, apprehension or prosecution. It does not authorise automatic secrecy merely because an inquiry exists, and its application depends on the circumstances of the requested records.
That framework makes the government’s choice of a broader institutional exemption especially significant. Investigative confidentiality is a legitimate concern, including protection of informants, intelligence assessments and sensitive personnel records. But confidentiality of particular documents is legally different from excluding the office handling them from the transparency regime.
Home Minister Ramesh Chennithala has defended the decision on the grounds that confidentiality is necessary for effective vigilance operations. Health Minister K Muraleedharan has also argued that disclosure of certain material had hampered investigations and maintained that ordinary access to information would largely remain unaffected.
Those assurances do not resolve the statutory question. The administration must reconcile its operational concerns with the express corruption safeguard and demonstrate why existing exemptions cannot adequately protect investigations.
(The article ‘Legal experts challenge Vigilance RTI exemption order’ appeared first on Free Press Journal.)
Follow Arabian Post
Select Arabian Post as your preferred source on Google and MSN News for trusted business news and Arab politics and updates.
