Right to Information Act, 2005 – ss.8(1)(h), 24(4) – Exemption from disclosure of information – First respondent-Town Inspector implicated by the Special Police Establishment in a trap case – Registration of FIR – Sanction granted for his prosecution by the State Government – First respondent sought information under the 2005 Act, with regard to the decision making process in the grant of sanction, however, the request was rejected – State Information Commission rejected the appeal filed by the first respondent since he was not entitled to be supplied the said information in view of s.8(1)(h) – However, the High Court found that the investigation in the criminal proceedings was complete and thus, the first respondent could not be denied such information by relying upon s.8(1)(h), and directed the appellant-SPE to supply the information sought by the first respondent as per his application – Interference: Held: Absence of a prayer seeking declaration of invalidity of a piece of subordinate legislation by itself would not deter the Court from testing its validity – Such issue can be examined but after granting opportunity to the concerned authority to justify its validity – This Court can examine the validity of the Notification dated 25.08.2011, especially when the same had not been challenged by the first respondent in his writ petition before the High Court – Offences or classes of offences to be investigated by the SPE are limited to those punishable under the Act of 1988 and u/ss.409, 420 and Chapter XVIII of the Penal Code – Insofar as issues of ‘intelligence’ and ‘security’ are concerned, neither the Lokayukt nor the Up-Lokayukt under the Act of 1981 has been conferred jurisdiction to make any enquiry – Though s.24(4) states that the Act would apply to such ‘intelligence and security organisations’ established by the State Government as notified, the SPE though established by the State Government, not empowered to investigate any offences or classes of offences related to ‘intelligence’ and ‘security’ – Statutory scheme under which the SPE stands constituted coupled with the jurisdiction conferred on the Lokayukt or Up-Lokayukt clearly indicate that the SPE cannot be termed to be an ‘intelligence and security’ organisation when it assists the Lokayukt or Up-Lokayukt in matters specified by s.7 of the Act of 1981 – Thus, the Notification dated 25.08.2011 issued by the GAD of the State of Madhya Pradesh to the extent it seeks to exclude the SPE from the purview of the Act of 2005 in view of s.24(4) thereof set aside as being bad in law as it provides for matters not enumerated s.7 of the Act of 1947 – SPE having been conferred jurisdiction only to investigate offences punishable under the Act of 1988, ss.409,
420 and Chapter XVIII of the Penal Code, it cannot be termed to be an ‘intelligence and security’ organisation for the purposes of s.24(4) of the Act of 2005 – Notification dated 28.05.2011 does not conform to s.24(4), thus, excessive in nature – Thus, while maintaining the judgment of the High Court, the Notification dated 25.08.2011 seeking to exclude the SPE from the applicability of the provisions of the Act of 2005 struck down – Madhya Pradesh Special Police Establishment Act, 1947 – Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. [Paras 20-22]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Headnotes prepared by: Nidhi Jain. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.