Ratios
a. ’Right to get information’ is an integral part of freedom of speech.
b. Right to life under Art.21 of the Constitution of India includes the right to be informed.
c. In respect of furnishing information relating to corruption and human rights, the intelligence and security organizations cannot claim exemption under Sec.24 of the Right to Information Act, 2005.

1. Both the writ appeals, at the instance of the State, are directed against the common order dismissing the writ petitions.

2. The factual matrix leading to the filing of the writ petitions and the writ appeals are as follows. The Government of Tamil Nadu issued G.O.Ms.No.158, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (N) Department dated 26.8.2008 specifying that the provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") shall not apply to the Tamil Nadu State Vigilance Commission and Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption organizations. It also issued a notification to the said effect in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette in exercise of the powers conferred under sub-section (4) of Section 24 of the said Act. Thereafter, a press release was issued by the Director of Information and Public Relations, Chennai vide Press Release No.786 dated 23.9.2008 to the effect that the exemption has been given to the Department of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption only considering the fact that even before the investigation is completed in a case and even before a decision is taken by the Government to proceed further, furnishing information to an applicant would hamper the investigation, especially, in most of the cases, the delinquents themselves would be interested to know about their cases under the Right to Information Act. Hence, it was stated that the required information cannot be furnished to them. It was also further stated that once the investigation stands completed and a final report was laid before the Government, the information can be obtained by an applicant under the Right to Information Act.

3. Based on the said press release, Thiru V.Madhav, the first respondent in W.A.No.321 of 2010, made an application dated 4.10.2008 before the Public Information Officer, Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, Chennai seeking for furnishing of certain particulars under the Right to Information Act, namely, number of investigations completed and the number of persons convicted for the years from 2003-2004 to 2007- 2008 with the details as to the names of such convicted persons, the post held by them when the act of corruption was done, the charges framed and the recommendations given to the Vigilance Commissioner after investigation. As those particulars were not furnished, he filed appeal dated 8.8.2008 before the Appellate Authority seeking to take suitable steps to furnish those particulars within the time limit specified under the Act. Thereafter, a further reminder was also made on 27.11.2008. Even thereafter, as no information or reply was furnished/received, he filed a second appeal dated 11.12.2008 before the Tamil Nadu State Information Commission seeking for suitable directions for furnishing of the particulars sought for by relying upon the proviso to Section 24(4) which states that "Provided that the information pertaining to the allegations of corruption and human rights violations shall not be excluded under this sub-section". In the meanwhile, the Superintendent of Police, Central Range/Public Information Officer by letter dated 12.12.2008 informed the first respondent that the Act shall not apply to the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption as per the Government Order dated 26.8.2008 and that the authenticated press release cited by the first respondent was not received in the Directorate and therefore refused to furnish the information. Thereafter, the second appeal of the first respondent was considered by the second respondent-State Information Commission and after holding of enquiry on 24.9.2009, the second respondent, by order dated 16.10.2009, directed the appellant-public authority to furnish the particulars to the first respondent within two weeks of the receipt of the order.

4. Likewise, Thiru R.Karthikeyan, the first respondent in W.A.No.320 of 2010, filed an application dated 30.12.2008 before the Public Information Officer, Home Department, Secretariat,