Court denies exemption under Section 24(4) for corruption-related information, upholds transparency and accountability principles.

The court dismissed the writ appeals, affirming that the exemption under Section 24(4) does not apply to information related to allegations of corruption. The orders of the Chief Information Commissioner directing the public authority to provide the requested information were upheld. The writ petitions were dismissed, and the appeals failed, with the court emphasizing the importance of transparency and accountability in a democratic society.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Applicability of the Right to Information Act, 2005 to the Tamil Nadu State Vigilance Commission and Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption.
2. Validity of the Government Order (G.O.Ms. No. 158) exempting the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Department from the Right to Information Act.
3. Interpretation of Section 24(4) of the Right to Information Act regarding exemptions for intelligence and security organizations.
4. Obligation to provide information related to allegations of corruption and human rights violations despite exemptions.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Applicability of the Right to Information Act, 2005 to the Tamil Nadu State Vigilance Commission and Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption:
The Government of Tamil Nadu issued G.O.Ms. No. 158 on 26-8-2008, specifying that the provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005 shall not apply to the Tamil Nadu State Vigilance Commission and Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption. This order was published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette, exercising the powers conferred under sub-section (4) of Section 24 of the Act. The exemption was justified on the grounds that furnishing information before completing investigations would hamper the process, especially since delinquents might seek information about their cases.

2. Validity of the Government Order (G.O.Ms. No. 158) exempting the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Department from the Right to Information Act:
The validity of G.O.Ms. No. 158 was previously upheld by the Madras High Court in W.P. No. 4907 of 2009 on 30-3-2009. However, the court noted that the exemption does not apply to information pertaining to allegations of corruption and human rights violations. The learned judge in the present case applied this principle, stating that the requested information related to corruption and thus, the exemption could not be claimed.

3. Interpretation of Section 24(4) of the Right to Information Act regarding exemptions for intelligence and security organizations:
Section 24(4) allows the State Government to exempt intelligence and security organizations from the Act, but the first proviso explicitly states that information related to allegations of corruption and human rights violations cannot be excluded. The court emphasized that the nature of the information requested determines the applicability of the exemption. Since the information sought by the respondents pertained to corruption, the exemption under Section 24(4) was not applicable.

4. Obligation to provide information related to allegations of corruption and human rights violations despite exemptions:
The respondents sought information on completed investigations, convictions, and details of corrupt officials, which fall under allegations of corruption. The court held that the Government Order exempting the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Department from the Act does not apply to such information. Consequently, the Superintendent of Police, Central Range, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Department, was directed to furnish the requested information.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the writ appeals, affirming that the exemption under Section 24(4) does not apply to information related to allegations of corruption. The orders of the Chief Information Commissioner directing the public authority to provide the requested information were upheld. The writ petitions were dismissed, and the appeals failed, with the court emphasizing the importance of transparency and accountability in a democratic society.

---