The Supreme Court of India has ruled against a 2011 notification by the Madhya Pradesh government that exempted the Lokayukta’s Special Police Establishment (SPE) from the Right to Information (RTI) Act. The Court found the notification to be excessive and thus invalid, in the case of Special Police Establishment v. Kamta Prasad Mishra.
The notification in question had utilized Section 24(4) of the RTI Act, which permits state governments to exempt certain intelligence and security organizations from transparency requirements, to shield the SPE from providing information. However, a bench comprising Justices SVN Bhatti and Atul S Chandurkar declared, “We have held that the notification dated 25-8-2011 is excessive and is accordingly stopped.”
This decision arose from a petition filed by the SPE contesting an order by the Madhya Pradesh High Court, which had directed the SPE to disclose information requested under the RTI Act by Kamta Prasad Mishra, a police inspector facing corruption charges.
Mishra had filed an RTI application to obtain documents, including file notings and correspondence, related to the sanction decision for his prosecution. He was allegedly caught accepting a bribe of ₹10,000, with charges against him filed under Sections 7, 13(1)(d), and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Initially, his request for these documents was denied during the sanction process. After the sanction was granted, Mishra renewed his request, which was again denied by the Public Information Officer on August 17, 2020, citing the 2011 notification.
Upon appeal, Mishra’s request was again rejected in December 2020, based on Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act, which allows for exemption of information disclosure that could impede investigation or prosecution. This led Mishra to approach the Madhya Pradesh High Court, which in December 2021 quashed the rejections and ordered the information to be provided.
More Read
In response, the SPE appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that the High Court overlooked the 2011 notification exempting it from the RTI Act. However, the Supreme Court ultimately found the notification excessive and struck it down.
Advocate Nishant Ramakantrao Katneshwarkar represented the SPE, while Advocates Rajeev Singh and Harmeet Singh Ruprah appeared for the respondents.
