The Madras High Court has issued a significant ruling clarifying that the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption (DVAC) cannot invoke a blanket exemption from the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005, to suppress records concerning allegations of corruption. Justice Hemant Chandangoudar dismissed a writ petition filed by the State of Tamil Nadu, which had challenged a directive from the Tamil Nadu State Information Commission requiring the disclosure of inquiry records to a former official who was previously cleared of wrongdoing. The court emphasized that while organizations like the DVAC may be listed as exempted entities under Section 24(4) of the RTI Act, this exemption is not absolute, particularly when the requested information pertains to corruption or human rights violations.

The dispute originated in January 2021, when retired Director General of Police S.R. Jangid submitted an RTI application seeking access to specific reports, witness statements, and documentation related to a Detailed Enquiry conducted by the DVAC against him. Following an initial rejection by the Public Information Officer and a subsequent appeal process, the State Information Commission ordered the disclosure of the requested records. The Commission mandated that the DVAC provide the documents while masking the names and personal particulars of any third-party officers involved, a condition meant to balance the rights of the applicant with the privacy of others. The State challenged this order, arguing that such disclosure would endanger confidential sources, violate departmental confidentiality rules, and impose an unreasonable administrative burden on the agency.

Rejecting the State’s arguments, the court held that the internal manuals and administrative policies of the DVAC cannot override the statutory provisions established by the Parliament through the RTI Act. Justice Chandangoudar clarified that the existence of an exemption under Section 24(4) does not grant the DVAC an unhindered right to withhold documents if the inquiry relates to potential corruption. Furthermore, the court criticized the State’s reliance on Section 8(1)(g) of the RTI Act , which allows for the withholding of information that might endanger life or reveal confidential law-enforcement sources. The court observed, "A general assertion that disclosure may affect the safety of witnesses or third parties is not sufficient to attract Section 8(1)(g)." The judgment made it clear that the State failed to provide specific evidence or material to demonstrate that any concrete threat existed to individuals mentioned in the inquiry files.

The Bounds of Administrative Confidentiality

A central contention in the petition was whether Rule 29 of the DVAC Manual , which classifies inquiry information as confidential, could serve as an independent ground to deny access. The court firmly rejected this position, noting that an internal administrative instruction cannot create an exemption where none exists in the governing legislation. The court stated, "The Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption has been exempted from the operation of the RTI Act by G.O.Ms.No.158, Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department , dated 26.08.2008 . However, the proviso to Section 24(4) makes it clear that such exemption does not apply to information relating to allegations of corruption and human rights violations." This holding reaffirms the principle that administrative bodies must justify their actions within the framework of existing federal and state statutes, rather than relying on their own regulatory guidelines.

Regarding the State's concern that the records were too voluminous to mask names and individual particulars, the court invoked Section 10 of the RTI Act , which allows for the severance of exempt information. The court held that administrative difficulty is not a legally valid reason to withhold an entire body of records. By applying the principle of severability , the DVAC is required to disclose non-exempt portions of the documents while blacking out private details of third parties. The ruling highlights the duty of public information officers to facilitate transparency rather than focusing on the effort required to redact sensitive data. The court noted, "The effort involved in applying the statutory requirement of severability cannot convert otherwise disclosable information into exempt information."

Implications for Transparency and Accountability

The ruling holds significant implications for how law enforcement and anti-corruption agencies handle information requests. By stripping away the presumption of total immunity, the court has ensured that individuals who have been the subject of government inquiries—particularly when those inquiries conclude in their favor—retain a right to understand the process and evidence used against them. This decision serves as a check on the tendency of state agencies to treat all internal files as "top secret," even when the primary function of the agency involves investigating public corruption.

The court further addressed the contention regarding the pendency of a civil suit (O.S.No.13833 of 2010), noting that legal privilege in judicial proceedings and the right to information under the RTI Act are distinct concepts. The court reaffirmed that a pending lawsuit does not automatically shield an agency from its transparency obligations under the RTI framework. The judgment requires the DVAC to comply with the State Information Commission’s original order within the specified 45-day timeframe.

The court did, however, leave an opening for the procedural protections found in Section 11 of the RTI Act, which concerns the disclosure of information supplied by third parties. Should any document in the inquiry file involve sensitive third-party details that require a formal notification process, the DVAC is authorized to follow those procedures. Crucially, the court specified that the need to follow Section 11 for specific documents cannot be used as a blanket delay tactic for the remainder of the records.

With the dismissal of the writ petition, the DVAC is now under a strict legal obligation to release the inquiry files associated with S.R. Jangid. The order ensures that while privacy and safety remain protected, they cannot be used as pretexts to obstruct accountability. As of the current procedural stage, the State is required to proceed with the disclosure as outlined, ensuring that the process of obtaining records is handled with the appropriate level of transparency and adherence to the statutory mandates of the RTI Act. This judgment effectively closes the door on the use of internal manuals as a shield against public scrutiny in matters involving the integrity and conduct of state officials.