The Kerala High Court on Wednesday issued notice to the State government on public interest litigation (PIL) petitions challenging its recent decision to exempt certain sections of the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau (VACB) from disclosure under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005 [Adv PK Muralikrishnan v. State of Kerala & Ors.]

A Division Bench of Chief Justice Soumen Sen and Justice Syam Kumar VM also asked the State government to clarify whether the decision to exempt T1 and T2 sections of the VACB from the purview of the RTI Act includes information regarding vigilance inquiries against officials.

However, the Court did not impose a stay on the government decision.

The decision to exempt T1 and T2 sections was notified by the Kerala government through a Government Order (GO) published in the Kerala Gazette on October 22, 2026.

The GO was issued invoking Section 24(4) of the RTI Act, which allows state governments to exempt specified intelligence and security organisations from the Act, subject to conditions laid down in the provision. 

At least two PILs were filed before the Kerala High Court challenging this move. One of the PILs was moved by advocate PK Muralikrishnan who was a Legal Advisor to the VACB in Kerala. Another was moved by Joy Kaitharath who is a prominent anti-corruption and RTI activist.

The petitioners argued that the GO in question discloses no functions, reasons, or objective material forming the basis of the opinion that "T1" and "T2" Sections constitute "intelligence and security organisations". They submitted that the mandate of these Sections essentially relates to processing complaints and investigations of corruption against public servants.

"Their exclusion from the RTI framework, therefore, has significant implications for public access to information concerning the functioning of the anti-corruption machinery", Kaitharath argued in his PIL.

Muralikrishnan argued that Public Information Officers and First Appellate Authorities under the VACB are misusing the GO, "thereby erecting an impenetrable veil of secrecy over anti-corruption administration in Kerala".

The petitioners also pointed out that the first proviso to Section 24(4) provides that information pertaining to allegations of corruption and human rights violations shall not be excluded from RTI disclosure.

Since T1 and T2 Sections handle corruption allegations, excluding them entirely creates a direct statutory conflict and nullifies this proviso, they argued.

"Merely stating that [the GO] is "subject to the provisos" is an illegal exercise that promotes arbitrary blanket rejections by Public Information Officers," Muralikrishnan stated in his PIL.

Kaitharath argued that the mere fact that such sections handle confidential or sensitive information does not, by itself, establish that they constitute intelligence or security organisations within the meaning of Section 24(4).

The petitioners also contended that the GO is arbitrary and disproportionate as it denies access even to information concerning even concluded proceedings or administrative actions that may not otherwise qualify to be exempted under the RTI Act.

On these, among other grounds, the petitioners sought orders from the High Court quashing the GO under question and declaration that "T1" and "T2" Sections of the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau are not "intelligence and security organisations" within the meaning of Section 24(4) of the Act.

Alternatively, Muralikrishnan sought a declaration that the GO shall not apply to any information pertaining to the receipt, registration, verification, enquiry, closure or outcome of complaints alleging corruption against public servants.

The PILs will be heard next on November 18.

Muralikrishnan was represented by advocates Amith Krishnan H, Anna Mary Mathew, Manavi Muraleedharan and Kavya P.

Kaitharath was represented by advocates Jose Abraham, Muraleedharan R, Sebastian Joseph, Basil Jaison and Deepa Joseph.