SPECIAL POLICE ESTABLISHMENT v. KAMTA PRASAD MISHRA & ORS.
2026 INSC 644 : Criminal Appeal No. 3743 of 2024
Decided on 15-06-2026
Coram: Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar
HEADNOTES
Right to Information Act, 2005 — S.24(4) — Exemption from applicability of Act — “Intelligence and security organisations” — Scope — Madhya Pradesh Special Police Establishment (SPE) not an intelligence and security organisation — Notification granting exemption — Ultra vires.
State Government issued Notification dated 25.08.2011 under S.24(4) excluding Madhya Pradesh Special Police Establishment (Lokayukt Organisation) from the purview of the RTI Act.
Held, SPE is constituted for investigation of corruption and allied offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, Sections 409, 420 and Chapter XVIII IPC. It is neither entrusted with intelligence functions nor security functions. Consequently, it cannot be treated as an “intelligence and security organisation” within the meaning of S.24(4). Notification dated 25.08.2011 excluding SPE from the operation of the RTI Act is beyond the scope of S.24(4) and liable to be struck down.
(Paras 13-22).
Right to Information Act, 2005 — S.24(4) — Interpretation — State Government's power to exempt organisations.
Held, exemption under S.24(4) is confined only to such organisations established by the State Government that are genuinely concerned with intelligence and security functions. Mere investigative powers relating to corruption or criminal misconduct do not bring an organisation within the ambit of “intelligence and security organisation”.
(Paras 13-20).
Right to Information Act, 2005 — S.8(1)(h) — Information relating to sanction for prosecution — Investigation already completed.
Public servant sought information regarding decision-making process leading to grant of sanction for his prosecution under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
Held, where investigation had already concluded and charge-sheet had been filed, information regarding grant of sanction for prosecution could not be denied merely by invoking S.8(1)(h). Disclosure of such information would not impede investigation, apprehension or prosecution of offenders.
(Paras 2, 3, 4, 7).
Constitutional Law — Judicial Review — Subordinate Legislation — Validity can be examined suo motu.
Question regarding validity of Notification dated 25.08.2011 arose before Supreme Court though specific challenge to notification had not been raised before High Court.
Held, Constitutional Courts possess limited power to examine validity of subordinate legislation suo motu where pure questions of law arise and affected State authorities are afforded full opportunity to justify the legislation. Absence of a specific prayer does not always preclude examination of validity of subordinate legislation.
(Paras 8-11).
Subordinate Legislation — Grounds of challenge — Principles.
Held, subordinate legislation may be challenged not only on grounds available against plenary legislation but also on the grounds that it fails to conform to the parent statute, exceeds delegated authority, or is contrary to the statutory scheme under which it is made.
(Para 12).
Lokayukt — Anti-corruption mechanism — Nature of functions.
Held, the Lokayukt Organisation under the Madhya Pradesh Lokayukt Evam Up-Lokayukt Adhiniyam, 1981 is primarily an institution for inquiry into allegations of corruption, misconduct and abuse of office by public servants. Such functions are distinct from intelligence gathering and security operations contemplated by S.24 of the RTI Act.
(Paras 17-20).
Interpretation of Statutes — Meaning of “intelligence and security organisations”.
Held, expression “intelligence and security organisations” in S.24 of the RTI Act must be construed in light of organisations enumerated in the Second Schedule to the Act, such as enforcement, border security and national security agencies. Organisations dealing only with corruption investigations do not fall within that category.
(Paras 14, 15, 20).
Right to Information Act, 2005 — Transparency in anti-corruption proceedings.
Held, information concerning grant of sanction for prosecution cannot be withheld on a blanket basis once statutory conditions for exemption cease to exist. Transparency remains the governing principle and exemptions must be construed strictly.
(Paras 2-4, 22).
Ratio Decidendi
- An organisation can be exempted under S.24(4) of the RTI Act only if it is genuinely an intelligence or security organisation.
- The Madhya Pradesh Special Police Establishment investigating corruption offences is not such an organisation.
- A notification issued beyond the limits of delegated authority under S.24(4) is ultra vires and liable to be struck down.
- Courts may, in exceptional cases, examine validity of subordinate legislation even without a specific challenge, after affording adequate opportunity to the State.
-
Information relating to sanction for prosecution cannot be denied under S.8(1)(h) once investigation is complete and disclosure would not impede prosecution.
(Paras 8-12, 20-22).
Held
Notification dated 25.08.2011 issued by the State of Madhya Pradesh excluding the Special Police Establishment from the operation of the RTI Act struck down. Judgment of the High Court directing supply of information upheld. Criminal appeal dismissed. Clarified that validity of the notification insofar as it relates to the State Bureau of Investigation of Economic Offences was not examined and continues to operate to that extent.
(Para 22).
