Court upholds constitutionality of RTI Act's Section 24 & Second Schedule, excluding intel agencies.

The court upheld the constitutionality of Section 24 read with the Second Schedule of the Right to Information Act, 2005, and the validity of the Central Information Commission's order. It found that the exclusion of intelligence and security organizations from the RTI Act, except for information on corruption and human rights violations, is reasonable and does not violate fundamental rights under Articles 19(1)(a) and 14 of the Constitution. The court emphasized the importance of state security and integrity in upholding these restrictions, ultimately dismissing the writ petition challenging the provisions of the RTI Act.

---

---

Issues Involved
1. Constitutionality of Section 24 read with the Second Schedule of the Right to Information Act, 2005.
2. Validity of the order dated 11th May, 2009, passed by the Central Information Commission.
3. Right to information as a fundamental right under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.
4. Allegations of arbitrariness and lack of guidance in Section 24 of the RTI Act.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis

1. Constitutionality of Section 24 read with the Second Schedule of the Right to Information Act, 2005
The petitioner challenged the constitutionality of Section 24 and the Second Schedule of the RTI Act, arguing that it infringes upon the fundamental right to information under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. The court referred to several precedents, including R.S. Joshi v. Ajit Mills Ltd., Charanjit Lal Chowdhary v. Union of India, and Ram Krishna Dalmia v. Justice S.R. Tendolkar, which establish a presumption in favor of the constitutionality of an enactment. The court emphasized that Section 24 excludes intelligence and security organizations from the purview of the RTI Act, except for information pertaining to allegations of corruption and human rights violations. The court held that this exclusion is reasonable and does not violate Article 19(1)(a) or Article 14 of the Constitution, as it pertains to the security and integrity of the state.

2. Validity of the order dated 11th May, 2009, passed by the Central Information Commission
The petitioner sought to quash the order of the Central Information Commission, which dismissed their appeal for information on the grounds that the Directorate of Enforcement is exempt under Section 24 of the RTI Act. The Commission held that it is not within its jurisdiction to pronounce on the constitutionality of Section 24. The court upheld the Commission's order, stating that the exclusion of certain organizations under Section 24 is justified and does not warrant interference.

3. Right to Information as a Fundamental Right under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution
The petitioner argued that the right to information is a fundamental right under Article 19(1)(a) and cannot be curtailed by statutory provisions. The court acknowledged the importance of the right to information in a democratic society but noted that this right is not absolute. Article 19(2) allows for reasonable restrictions in the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the state, and public order. The court cited the case of People's Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India, which upheld reasonable restrictions on the right to information in the interest of state security.

4. Allegations of Arbitrariness and Lack of Guidance in Section 24 of the RTI Act
The petitioner contended that Section 24 is arbitrary and lacks guidance, granting unfettered power to deny information. The court disagreed, stating that the provision is clear in its exclusion of intelligence and security organizations while ensuring that information related to corruption and human rights violations is not excluded. The court found that the legislature has provided adequate guidance and that the provision is neither arbitrary nor unreasonable, thus not violating Article 14 of the Constitution.

Conclusion
The court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the constitutionality of Section 24 read with the Second Schedule of the RTI Act and the validity of the Central Information Commission's order. The court held that the restrictions imposed by Section 24 are reasonable and necessary for the security and integrity of the state, and do not infringe upon the fundamental rights under Articles 19(1)(a) and 14 of the Constitution.

---