Summary
The Supreme Court struck down the Madhya Pradesh notification of 25.08.2011, issued under Section 24(4) of the RTI Act, 2005, to the extent it excluded the Madhya Pradesh Special Police Establishment of the Lokayukt Organisation from the Act. The SPE can investigate only corruption-related offences and is not an 'intelligence and security' organisation. The Court upheld the High Court's direction to supply a public servant with information on the grant of sanction for his prosecution.
Issues
- Whether the Madhya Pradesh Special Police Establishment of the Lokayukt Organisation is an 'intelligence and security' organisation that the State may exempt from the RTI Act under Section 24(4).
- Whether the Court could examine the validity of the notification of 25.08.2011 although the first respondent had not challenged it before the High Court.
- Whether the High Court rightly directed the appellant to supply information on the process of granting sanction for the first respondent's prosecution.
Provisions considered
- Section 24(1) and 24(4), Right to Information Act, 2005The Court read the section as quoted. The exemption covers only 'intelligence and security' organisations, those of the Central Government listed in the Second Schedule or those established by the State and notified, and the first proviso does not exclude information on corruption allegations. Since the SPE's jurisdiction is limited to corruption-related offences, the State notification exempting it went beyond Section 24(4). (¶¶ 13, 14, 15, 20, 22)
- Section 8(1)(h), Right to Information Act, 2005The Court noted this exemption for information that would impede investigation, apprehension or prosecution of offenders, on which the Commission had relied. The High Court had held it inapplicable because the investigation was complete, and the Supreme Court maintained that judgment. (¶¶ 2, 7, 13, 22)
- Sections 2(1) and 3, Madhya Pradesh Special Police Establishment Act, 1947The SPE was constituted under Section 2(1) to investigate offences notified under Section 3. The notifications of 1959, 1989, 2000 and 2001 confine it to offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Sections 409 and 420 and Chapter XVIII IPC by public servants, and related conspiracies, none of which concern intelligence or security. (¶¶ 11, 19, 20)
- Sections 2(b) and 7, Madhya Pradesh Lokayukt Evam Up-Lokayukt Adhiniyam, 1981The Lokayukt's jurisdiction is limited to enquiring into an 'allegation' of corruption or abuse of position against a public servant. The SPE assisting it under Section 7 therefore has no remit over intelligence or security matters. (¶¶ 17, 18, 20)
- Section 63, Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013Referred to, though it is later central legislation, as indicating that a State Lokayukta is a body dealing only with corruption complaints against public functionaries. (¶ 18)
Held
- Lack of a specific prayer or pleading does not prevent a court from testing the validity of subordinate legislation when a party relies on it, provided the authority concerned is given a full opportunity to justify it. A pure question of interpretation needing no factual adjudication may be examined even if not raised before the High Court. Manjurani Routray was distinguished because the State here was heard at length and filed written submissions. (¶¶ 8, 9, 10, 11)
- Subordinate legislation does not enjoy the immunity of a statute. Besides the grounds available against plenary legislation, it may be struck down for failing to conform to, or for exceeding, the authority conferred by its parent statute. (¶ 12)
- The exemption in Section 24 of the RTI Act is confined to organisations genuinely concerned with intelligence and security, such as those in the Second Schedule (ED, CRPF, BSF, CISF, NIA). A State organisation whose jurisdiction is limited to investigating corruption and related offences by public servants is not such an organisation, and the plea of 'institutional parity' cannot justify its exemption. (¶¶ 13, 14, 15, 20)
- The Madhya Pradesh SPE, constituted under the 1947 Act to investigate offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Sections 409 and 420 and Chapter XVIII IPC, and acting under a Lokayukt whose jurisdiction under the 1981 Act is limited to corruption allegations against public servants, is not an 'intelligence and security' organisation. The notification of 25.08.2011, to the extent it excludes the SPE from the RTI Act, exceeds Section 24(4) and is struck down. (¶¶ 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22)
- The High Court's judgment directing supply of the information sought was maintained. The Court did not examine the notification's validity as regards the State Bureau of Investigation of Economic Offences, and it continues to operate to that extent. (¶ 22)
Result
Appeal dismissed; the High Court's judgment directing supply of the information maintained; the notification of 25.08.2011 struck down so far as it excludes the Madhya Pradesh SPE of the Lokayukt Organisation from the RTI Act, while continuing to operate as regards the State Bureau of Investigation of Economic Offences.