The notification exempting the Vigilance Department from the RTI Act is ultra vires as it contravenes the RTI Act's provisions for disclosing information on allegations of corruption and human rights violations.

JUDGMENT :

S. MURALIDHAR, CJ.

1. These three writ petitions, each filed by way of Public Interest Litigation (PIL) involve a challenge to the impugned notification dated 11^th August 2016 issued by the Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Information and Public Relations Department, Government of Odisha under Section 24 (4) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act), and are accordingly being disposed of by this common judgment. The said notification provides that nothing contained in the RTI Act “shall apply to the General Administration (Vigilance) Department” of the Government of Odisha “and its organization.”

Contentions of the Petitioners

2. The main ground of challenge in the aforesaid three writ petitions to the impugned notification is that it violates Article 19 (1) (a) of the Constitution of India which guarantees to all Indian citizens the fundamental right to information. It is submitted that under the RTI Act disclosure is the norm and refusal of information, the exception. Reliance in this regard is placed on the decisions in State of Uttar Pradesh v. Raj Narain , AIR 1975 SC 865; S.P. Gupta v. President of India , AIR 1982 SC 149 and Union of India v. Association for Democratic Reforms , AIR 2002 SC 2112.

3. Referring to Section 24 (4) of the RTI Act and, in particular, to the proviso thereto, it is submitted that the power of exemption granted to the State Government thereunder is not available even in the case of intelligence and security organizations where the allegations pertain to corruption and human rights violations. It is submitted that inasmuch as the impugned notification seeks to exempt the entire Vigilance Department in Odisha from the purview of the RTI Act, irrespective of the proviso to (4) of the RTI Act, it is ultra vires (4) of the RTI Act.

In other words, it is contended that by the impugned notification the Government intends to keep away from disclosure to the public, instances of corruption and human right violations, notwithstanding the proviso to Section 24 (4) of the RTI Act. It is further submitted that the notification issued under (4) of the RTI Act or even the Rules made under Section 28 of the RTI Act cannot exceed the scope of the restriction under of the RTI Act. It is submitted that the Rules and the notifications are meant to carry out the provisions of the RTI Act and not whittle down or take away what is guaranteed by the RTI Act. Reliance is placed on the decision in Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay v. Gwalior Rayon Silk Manufacturing Company Ltd. AIR 1992 SC 1782 . It is further submitted that the impugned notification imposes a restriction not envisaged under Sections 8 and 9 of the RTI Act.

Contentions of the Opposite Parties

4. In reply to the writ petitions, the stand of the Opposite Parties (State) is that the activities of the Vigilance Department and its organizations are similar to that of the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) which is entrusted with the responsibility of administering anti-corruption laws. It is pointed out that the Government of India has exempted the CBI from the purview of the RTI Act since 2011. Likewise, the States of Tamil Nadu, Madhya Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh and Sikkim have issued notifications exe