The Madras High Court recently held that the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption (DVAC) cannot claim blanket exemption from disclosure of information under the Right to Information (RTI) Act when such information sought relates to allegations of corruption.[State Vs TNSIC]
Justice Hemant Chandangoudar held that although the DVAC is exempte from the RTI Act under Section 24(4), the exemption does not extend to information concerning allegations of corruption and human rights violations.
The Court made the observations while dismissing a petition filed by the Tamil Nadu government challenging an order directing the DVAC to furnish retired Director General of Police SR Jangid with records of a corruption enquiry conducted against him.
"The Detailed Enquiry relates to allegations of corruption investigated by the DVAC. Therefore, Section 24(4) cannot be relied upon as a complete bar to the information sought by the second respondent," the Court observed.
Jangid had filed an RTI application in January 2021 seeking copies of enquiry reports dated December 30, 2013 and August 6, 2015, statements recorded by the enquiry officer, queries raised by the government and documents collected during the investigation.
The DVAC rejected his application by invoking Section 8(1)(g) of the RTI Act, which bars disclosure of information that could endanger a person's safety or reveal confidential sources.
Jangid subsequently approached the Tamil Nadu State Information Commission, which directed the DVAC in May 2024 to disclose the records after masking the names and particulars of two other officers.
The State challenged this direction before the High Court, arguing that disclosure could compromise the safety of witnesses and confidential sources. It also relied on Rule 29 of the DVAC Manual, which requires information collected during enquiries to be treated as confidential.
However, the High Court found that the State had produced no material establishing any specific threat to witnesses or other persons.
"A general assertion that disclosure may affect the safety of witnesses or third parties is not sufficient to attract Section 8(1)(g)," the Court said.
The Court further held that internal administrative instructions cannot create exemptions beyond those expressly recognised under the RTI Act.
"An internal administrative instruction requiring information collected during an enquiry to be treated as confidential cannot create an exemption which is not contained in the RTI Act," it observed.
The Court noted that the enquiry against Jangid had ultimately been closed in his favour. Thus, it said that he was entitled to access records substantially concerning the proceedings against him.
The Court rejected the State's argument that since the records are voluminous, masking confidential information would be difficult.
"The effort involved in applying the statutory requirement of severability cannot convert otherwise disclosable information into exempt information," the Court said.
Accordingly, the Court upheld the Information Commission's order and directed disclosure of the enquiry records after masking the particulars of the other officers and following the statutory third-party consultation procedure wherever applicable.
However, it clarified that this would not confer an unrestricted right to obtain every document in the enquiry file. Genuinely private information concerning unrelated third parties could still be protected, it said.
State Public Prosecutor R Johnsathyan, assisted by Government Advocate N Palanivel, represented the Tamil Nadu government.
Advocate C Vigneshwaran appeared for the State Information Commission.
Advocates Nithyaesh Nataraj and Vaibhav R Venkatesh represented Jangid.
[Read Judgment]