Tamil Nadu Withdraws Within a Week Its Order Exempting the Law and Order Department From the RTI Act

The news

Chennai. The Tamil Nadu government on Sunday, September 27, withdrew a Government Order that had exempted the Public (Law and Order) Department from the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005, both The Hindu and The Indian Express report. The order, G.O. Ms. No. 57 of the Human Resources Management (R) Department dated September 21, 2026, invoked Section 24(4) of the RTI Act, which lets a State government exclude from the Act intelligence and security organisations it has established. It was notified in the Gazette. “The Governor of Tamil Nadu hereby specifies the Public (Law and Order) Department being an Intelligence and Security Organisation established by the Government of Tamil Nadu for which the said Act shall not apply,” the notification said, per The Indian Express. The revocation read: “GO Ms.No.57 … relating to exemption of the Public (Law and Order) Department under sub-section (4) of Section 24 of the RTI Act, 2005, stands revoked.” Minister for Energy Resources and Law C.T.R. Nirmal Kumar announced the withdrawal on X; earlier that day in Madurai, The Hindu reports, he had defended the order, saying only certain matters, including details of communal clashes, were kept out given their sensitivity. The department is not a spy agency. Its work, per the two papers, covers communal and caste clashes; Commissions of Inquiry; detention under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act (COFEPOSA) and the National Security Act (NSA), including detainees’ representations and habeas corpus petitions — petitions asking a court to produce a detained person and test the legality of detention — before the Madras High Court and the Supreme Court; inquiry reports on police firing, custodial deaths, police torture and deaths of remand prisoners; NHRC references; monthly law-and-order reports to the Union government; replies to Parliament questions; and requests to withdraw cases registered over political, communal or student agitations, and sanction to prosecute for defamatory articles and speeches. The order drew criticism from AMMK founder T.T.V. Dhinakaran, environmental activist G. Sundarrajan of Poovulagin Nanbargal, Arappor Iyakkam convenor Jayaram Venkatesan, CPI(M) MP Su Venkatesan and VCK chief Thol Thirumavalavan, whose party supports the government and who said it would “pave the way for suppressing human rights”. Arappor Iyakkam called it “absurd to classify all information” held by the wing as intelligence-related; a retired State DGP told The Indian Express it was a “setback” to the anti-corruption campaign of Chief Minister C. Joseph Vijay’s TVK government. The Indian Express calls it another in a series of reversals. The syllabus link is GS2: transparency and accountability, and the RTI Act.

Static syllabus linkage

1. Section 24 keeps security agencies outside the Act, with two exceptions. Section 24(1) of the RTI Act, 2005 says the Act does not apply to the intelligence and security organisations listed in the Second Schedule, established by the Central Government, such as the Intelligence Bureau and the Research and Analysis Wing. Section 24(4) gives a State government the same power for intelligence and security organisations it has established, by notification in the Official Gazette, and such notifications must be laid before the State Legislature. The proviso to both sub-sections says that information on allegations of corruption and human-rights violations is not excluded. For human-rights allegations, information is given only with the approval of the Information Commission and within 45 days of the request.
2. Section 8 already protects sensitive information item by item. Section 8(1) exempts information whose disclosure would prejudicially affect the sovereignty, integrity, security or strategic interests of the State, information that would endanger a person’s life or physical safety, and information that would impede investigation, apprehension or prosecution of offenders. Section 8(2) allows disclosure even of exempt information if the public interest outweighs the harm. Section 10 permits severability, so the non-exempt part of a record can be released. This record-by-record scheme is the Act’s normal method; a blanket exclusion of a whole organisation is the exception.
3. Information Commissions enforce the Act at both levels. The Central Information Commission and State Information Commissions are statutory bodies under the RTI Act that hear second appeals and complaints and can impose a penalty of ₹250 a day, up to ₹25,000, on a Public Information Officer who refuses information without reasonable cause. After the RTI (Amendment) Act, 2019, the term and salaries of Information Commissioners are fixed by rules made by the Central Government rather than by the Act. A first appeal lies to an officer senior to the Public Information Officer within the department.
4. COFEPOSA and the NSA are preventive-detention laws under Article 22. Article 22 allows preventive detention, with safeguards: communication of grounds, an opportunity to make a representation, and review by an Advisory Board if detention exceeds three months. The COFEPOSA, 1974 permits detention to prevent smuggling and foreign-exchange violations, and the National Security Act, 1980 to prevent acts prejudicial to security, public order or essential supplies, for up to 12 months. Habeas corpus under Articles 32 and 226 is the main remedy for detainees, and the record of how representations are handled is often decisive in court.

Why UPSC loves this

1. RTI is a favourite of GS2 and the Ethics paper. The syllabus names ‘transparency and accountability’ and ‘citizens charters’ in GS2, and GS4 lists ‘right to information’ under probity in governance. Mains has asked about the RTI Act’s amendments and its impact on accountability. Today’s episode is a crisp example of an exemption clause being used beyond its purpose.
2. Prelims asks which bodies are outside the Act and on what terms. Expect statements on Section 24, the Second Schedule, the corruption and human-rights proviso, and whether a State can notify its own exempt organisations. The penalty amounts and the appellate structure are also regularly tested.

Analysis

1. A secretariat department is not an ‘organisation established’ for intelligence. Section 24(4) speaks of intelligence and security organisations, meaning bodies whose work is gathering intelligence or providing security. The Public (Law and Order) Department is a wing of the State secretariat that processes files — inquiry reports, detention papers, prosecution sanctions, Assembly and Parliament replies. Calling it an intelligence organisation stretches the text. Had the order stood, it would likely have been challenged as a colourable exercise of power, where the form of a statutory power is used for a purpose the statute does not intend.
2. The records at stake are the State’s own accountability records. Custodial deaths, police firing, torture complaints and the handling of detenus’ representations are exactly the matters where citizens and courts need records. These fall largely within the human-rights and corruption proviso, so even a valid exemption would not have removed them fully. But a blanket exclusion shifts the burden: a citizen must first prove the matter involves a human-rights allegation, then wait for the Information Commission’s approval. The practical chilling effect would have been large even if the legal effect was limited.
3. The Minister’s own defence shows why Section 8 was enough. Mr. Nirmal Kumar said the intent was to protect sensitive details such as those on communal clashes. Section 8(1)(a), (g) and (h) already allow refusal where disclosure would harm security, endanger life or impede investigation, and Section 10 allows the rest of a record to be released. A targeted refusal is reviewable by the Information Commission; a blanket exemption is not. The government chose the blunt instrument when a precise one existed, which is why critics read the move as secrecy rather than security.
4. The reversal is healthy, but ‘trial balloon’ governance has costs. The quick withdrawal after criticism from allies and civil society shows that public pressure works and that the RTI Act has a constituency. The counter-view is that repeated reversals, which The Indian Express says insiders describe as testing reaction, weaken trust and make officials unsure which orders will last. A better practice would be pre-legislative consultation on any notification that narrows a citizen’s right, with a note explaining the legal basis. That would avoid both overreach and embarrassment.

Administrator's brainstorm