Back
Next 
2018 Supreme(Online)(All) 43
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
, J
Dr. Smt. Nutan Thakur – Appellant
Versus
Principal Secretary, Vigilance, Government of Uttar Pradesh – Respondent
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1234 of 2013
Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Dr. Smt. Nutan Thakur
For the Respondents: Learned Standing Counsel
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Dr. Smt. Nutan Thakur
For the Respondents: Learned Standing Counsel
The Lokayukta's exclusion from the Right to Information Act is unlawful as it does not qualify as an Intelligence or Security organization under Section 24(4).
Headnote:(A) Right to Information Act, 2005 - Section 24(4) - U.P. Lokayukta and Up - Lokayuktas Act, 1975 - Challenge to notifications exempting Lokayukta from RTI purview - Notifications declared ultra vires as Lokayukta does not fall under Intelligence and Security categories - Accountability and transparency in governance emphasized. (Paras 4, 56, 106)
(B) Right to Information - Public interest - Access to information is essential for citizens to exercise fundamental rights effectively - Curtailment of such rights deemed unreasonable and arbitrary. (Paras 5, 6, 66)
(C) Judicial precedent - Court referenced earlier cases emphasising citizens' right to know and the accountability of public functionaries. (Paras 9, 37, 54)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner challenged two notifications claiming they unlawfully excluded Lokayukta from the purview of the Right to Information Act, asserting that such exclusion violates public interest and hinders transparency in governance.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the Lokayukta is not an organization related to Intelligence or Security as per definitions provided under the Right to Information Act, and therefore the notifications excluding it were beyond the authority of the State. The notifications were declared illegal and void.
Issues: Whether the Lokayukta’s exclusion from the purview of the Right to Information Act is lawful and justified.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that for an organization to be excluded under Section 24(4), it must meet both 'Intelligence' and 'Security' criteria jointly, which Lokayukta does not fulfill, hence the exclusion is illegal.
Result: The writ petition is allowed; Notifications struck down.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. seeking reliefs via public interest litigation (Para 1) |
| 2. previous rulings impact the current petition (Para 2 , 3) |
| 3. public interest in information and its legal implications (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 4. opposing argument regarding the classification of lokayukta (Para 7) |
| 5. court proceedings and hearings (Para 8) |
| 6. historical context of the right to information (Para 9 , 10) |
| 7. establishment and roles of lokayukta (Para 11 , 12) |
| 8. definition and role clarifications for lokayukta (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 9. procedural guidelines for lokayukta operations (Para 17 , 18) |
| 10. investigation guidelines and limitations (Para 19 , 20) |
| 11. scope of investigatory powers of lokayukta (Para 21 , 22) |
| 12. privacy and confidentiality in investigations (Para 23 , 24 , 25) |
| 13. legislative authority concerning investigation functions (Para 26 , 27 , 28) |
| 14. rule-making powers and oversight (Para 29) |
| 15. clarification on exclusions under u.p. act 1975 (Para 30 , 31) |
| 16. aim of lokayukta in addressing corruption (Para 32 , 33 , 34) |
| 17. transparency and public interest in governance (Para 35 , 36) |
| 18. recognition of citizens' right to information (Para 37) |
| 19. development and evolution of right to information laws (Para 38 , 39) |
| 20. revisions of information access laws (Para 40 , 41) |
| 21. public authority obligations under rti (Para 42) |
| 22. judicial insights on transparency and accountability (Para 43 , 44 , 45 , 46) |
| 23. legal provisions granting citizens information rights (Para 47 , 48) |
| 24. legal framework ensuring the right to know (Para 49 , 50) |
| 25. endian constraints of secrecy laws in rti (Para 51 , 52) |
| 26. denial of information under specific conditions (Para 53 , 54) |
| 27. assessing the legality of lokayukta's exclusion from rti (Para 55 , 56) |
| 28. definition of critical terms: intelligence and security (Para 57 , 58 , 59) |
| 29. understanding intelligence and security definitions (Para 60 , 61 , 62) |
| 30. interpreting intelligence and security in law (Para 63 , 64 , 65) |
| 31. legal analysis of lokayukta's classification (Para 66 , 67) |
| 32. understanding corruption definitions for lokayukta (Para 68 , 69) |
| 33. corruption's broad definitions and implications (Para 70 , 71 , 72 , 73 , 74) |
| 34. interlink between corruption and governance quality (Para 75 , 76 , 77 , 78 , 79 , 80 , 81 , 82 , 83) |
| 35. impact of corruption on public services (Para 84 , 85 , 86) |
| 36. corruption pervasiveness in governmental sectors (Para 87 , 88) |
| 37. legitimizing public interest in governance transparency (Para 89 , 90 , 91) |
| 38. procedural matters regarding lokayukta appointments and authority (Para 92 , 93) |
| 39. legislative intent regarding transparency and accountability (Para 94 , 95) |
| 40. critique on the efficacy of lokayukta authority (Para 96 , 97) |
| 41. assessment of state's actions towards lokayukta (Para 98 , 99) |
| 42. accountability in addressing corruption (Para 100 , 101) |
| 43. petitioner's allegations against the state's motivations (Para 102 , 103) |
| 44. legal procedural grounds against allegations (Para 104 , 105) |
| 45. court's decision on the legality of notification (Para 106) |
| 46. conclusion of the judgment (Para 107) |
| 47. final order and awarding costs (Para 108) |
1. This writ petition has been filed as a Public Interest Litigation (hereinafter referred to as "PIL") seeking following reliefs:
"a. Issue a writ of Certiorari thereby quashing the impugned Notification 2339/39-4-2010-21/05, dated 22/09/2010 issued by the Respondent, Principal Secretary, Vigilance, Government of Uttar Pradesh as contained in Annexure No. 1 through which the Vigilance Department and Uttar Pradesh Vigilance Establishment have been brought out of the purview of the Right to Information Act, 2005 .
b. Issue a writ of Certiorari thereby quashing the impugned Notification 1679/39-4-2012-21-05 dated 03.08.2012 issued by Principal Secretary, Vigilance, Government of Uttar Pradesh as contained in Annexure No. 2 through which the Lokayukta agency has been brought out of the purview of the ."
2. While entertaining the writ petition on 01.
