The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of exemptions under the RTI Act, emphasizing the public's right to access information related to corruption and human rights violations.

This writ petition is preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issue of a writ of certiorari to call for the records pertaining to the orders dated 4. 2007 made in case No.1475, 2446, 1501 and 1503/Enquiry/2006 on the file of the Tamil Nadu Information Commission, fourth respondent and to quash the same.

The writ petition is filed by the Secretary to the Government of Tamil Nadu, Home Department along with three other officers. This writ petition is filed by the respondent State seeking to challenge the order passed by the fourth respondent Tamil Nadu Information Commission, dated 4. 2007.

2. By the impugned order, the Commission held that the Home Department of the State Government cannot deny information sought for by respondents 1 to 3 and that protections claimed by virtue of exemption under Section 8(h) of the Right to Information Act (for short RTI Act) will not apply to the petitioner department. The writ petition was admitted on 20.4.2007 and an interim order was granted. Subsequently when the matter came up on 212. 2009, at the instance of the learned Government Pleader, the writ petition was permitted to be withdrawn. Accordingly it was dismissed as withdrawn. Thereafter, the State Government filed a review application in Review application No.37 of 2010. After due notice to the parties, the review application was allowed by an order, dated 13. 2010 and the writ petition was restored.

3. Heard the arguments of Mr.P.S.Raman, learned Advocate General and Mr.A.L.Somayaji, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Mrs.Narmadha Sampath, counsel for secnd respondent, Mr.V.Perumal, learned counsel for first respondent, Mr.A.Govindasamy, learned counsel for third respondent and Mr.G.Rajagopal, learned Senior counsel for M/s.G.R.Associates for fourth respondent Information Commission.

4. It is seen from the records that the second respondent sought for the following information from the Public Information Officer attached to the first petitioner:

(a)Petitions received for withdrawal of the case in CC.No.450/04, CC No.449/04 and CC No.268/2005 on the file of Judicial Magistrate, Eraniel.

(b)Opinion of the Public Prosecutor received in this regard.

(c)The reports of Inspector General of Police, South Zone, Superintendent of Police and District Collector.

(d)The report of Deputy Inspector General of Police.

(e)Government Orders passed in this regard."

5. The Information Officer fourth petitioner informed the applicants that the information with confidence in nature cannot be divulged and they may contact the State Government. The second petitioner was informed that the information sought for is relating to the criminal case pending with Judicial Magistrate Court, Eraniel in C.C.No.451 of 2004 and therefore, the information cannot be divulged in the light of Section 8(h) of the RTI Act. If he was aggrieved, he can file an appeal to the appellate authority. The same reply was given to the other applicants.

6. Thereafter, the second respondent sent an appeal to the appellate authority under the first petitioner. The appellate authority by an order dated 21. 2007 once again took view that details regarding the criminal case pending cannot be furnished in terms of Section 8(h) of the Act. Thereafter, the second respondent filed an appeal to the fourth respondent Information Commission. In the said appeal, notice was given to the petitioners. Finally, the Commission, after hearing the parties, held that information sought for by the applicant (R2) exists in the Government file and the efforts of the officers was to hide certain facts to protect the officers of the Indian Rare Earths Limited. In the operative portion of the order, dated 4. 2007 (enquiry was conducted on 30.3.2007), the Commission has held as follows:

"Though it is evident from the case that an effort has been made to dodge supply of the information on dubious reasons at every stage right up to the stage of enquiry by the Commi