The Kerala High Court has initiated a critical review of the state government’s recent decision to shield certain functions of the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau (VACB) from the transparency requirements of the Right to Information Act, 2005. In a session held on October 28, 2026, a Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Soumen Sen and Justice Syam Kumar V. M directed the state to clarify whether the specific administrative sections now exempted truly fall under the legislative intent of security and intelligence oversight. This move follows a public interest litigation challenging the government’s October 22, 2026, notification, which brought the T1 and T2 sections of the VACB within the scope of Section 24(4) of the RTI Act.

The legal challenge centers on the state’s exercise of power under Section 24(4) of the RTI Act, which allows state governments to exempt specified intelligence and security organizations from the obligation to disclose information to the public. By categorizing the T1 and T2 sections of the VACB as exempt, the state effectively restricts the ability of citizens and investigative journalists to access records pertaining to ongoing vigilance inquiries involving public servants. The petitioner, in his plea, argues that the VACB is primarily a criminal investigation agency tasked with detecting, enquiring into, and investigating corruption-related offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and various allied penal laws.

Questioning the Classification of Investigative Bodies

At the heart of the dispute is the core function of the VACB. According to the petition, the state’s attempt to classify internal investigative sections as “intelligence and security” units is a mischaracterization designed to circumvent accountability. The petition submits that: “The VACB is primarily a criminal investigation agency responsible for detecting, enquiring into and investigating offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and allied penal laws.” By shifting these sections into the exempted category, the government has arguably conflated the administrative and intelligence-gathering roles of a law enforcement agency with the fundamental duty of anti-corruption investigation.

The legal contention posits that the principal function of the bureau is to root out corruption among public servants, a role that relies on public trust and transparency. The petitioner further emphasized: “The state government cannot bring sections of an anti-corruption investigative agency within the exemption merely by administrative classification or nomenclature.” This argument highlights a potential overreach by the executive, suggesting that the power granted under Section 24(4) is not an unfettered tool to mask the internal workings of criminal investigations, but rather a narrow provision reserved for agencies where disclosure could compromise the security of the state.

Examining the Limits of Executive Discretion

The petitioner further highlighted that the VACB was not included in the original list of eight organizations exempted from the RTI Act during the initial notification dated February 7, 2006. The sudden inclusion of specific sections nearly two decades later suggests a shift in policy that the court is now scrutinizing for its legal basis and constitutional validity. The High Court’s inquiry into the matter is not merely procedural; it addresses a significant issue of administrative law—namely, whether the government can unilaterally alter the transparency landscape for investigative bodies through administrative orders without demonstrating a demonstrable security risk.

The court’s request for clarification places the burden of proof squarely on the state government to demonstrate that the T1 and T2 sections perform functions so sensitive that their disclosure would pose a threat to state security. This development is being closely watched by legal professionals, as it touches upon the delicate balance between the state's interest in investigative secrecy and the public's right to information regarding potential misconduct by those in power. If the court finds that the classification of these sections as security organizations lacks a factual foundation, it may set a significant precedent for how anti-corruption bodies operate within the framework of the Right to Information Act in the future.

Procedural Status and Judicial Oversight

The proceedings reflect a broader judicial trend in the High Court of prioritizing transparency in governance, particularly when it pertains to institutions with the power to investigate and prosecute public officials. By demanding a formal explanation from the state, the Division Bench has effectively paused the practical application of the notification while the legal arguments are ventilated.

The court is expected to examine whether the notification satisfies the rigorous criteria required to categorize a government entity under the Section 24(4) exemption. The state’s response will likely determine the next phase of the litigation, as the court must weigh the necessity of the exemption against the underlying principle of open government. As it stands, the government must justify its recent administrative move by establishing a clear nexus between the work of the T1 and T2 sections and the legitimate intelligence functions of the state. The matter is set for further deliberation, with stakeholders awaiting the state's response regarding the specific, sensitive nature of the work performed by these newly exempted sections and why the protection of the information held within them is critical to the security of the state. The outcome of these proceedings will serve as a bellwether for the future of transparency regarding the functioning of law enforcement and vigilance wings in the region.