Madras High Court: DVAC Cannot Claim Blanket RTI Corruption Exemption

• The Madras High Court ruled that the DVAC cannot claim a blanket exemption from the RTI Act for information related to corruption allegations.
• Justice Hemant Chandangoudar clarified that while DVAC is generally exempt under Section 24(4) of the RTI Act, this does not apply to corruption or human rights violations.
• The decision stemmed from a case where the Tamil Nadu government challenged an order to provide former DGP SR Jangid with records of a corruption enquiry against him.
• Jangid had sought specific enquiry reports and investigation documents, which DVAC initially denied citing Section 8(1)(g) of the RTI Act.
• This ruling enhances transparency and accountability by allowing greater access to information on corruption investigations by vigilance directorates.

Lawyers can now cite this Madras High Court ruling to challenge blanket exemptions claimed by vigilance and anti-corruption directorates under the RTI Act, particularly when seeking information related to corruption allegations, thereby strengthening transparency and accountability in such investigations.

The Madras High Court recently delivered a significant ruling, asserting that the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption (DVAC) cannot invoke a blanket exemption from the Right to Information (RTI) Act when the information sought pertains to allegations of corruption. This pivotal decision, rendered in the case of State Vs TNSIC, underscores the judiciary's commitment to transparency, particularly concerning the actions of anti-corruption bodies.

Justice Hemant Chandangoudar, presiding over the matter, clarified that while Section 24(4) of the RTI Act generally exempts the agency from the purview of the RTI Act, this exemption is not absolute. Crucially, it does not extend to circumstances involving allegations of corruption or human rights violations. This interpretation ensures that vigilance directorates, despite their sensitive operations, remain accountable to the public in specific, critical areas.

The High Court's observations arose from its dismissal of a petition filed by the Tamil Nadu government. The government had challenged an earlier order that mandated the DVAC to furnish retired Director General of Police SR Jangid with records related to a corruption enquiry conducted against him. Jangid had initiated an RTI application in January 2021, seeking comprehensive details of the investigation.

His request included copies of specific enquiry reports dated December 30, 2013, and August 6, 2015, alongside statements recorded by the enquiry officer, queries raised by the government, and all documents collected during the investigation. The DVAC had initially rejected Jangid's application, citing Section 8(1)(g) of the RTI Act, which is intended to prevent the disclosure of information that could jeopardize an individual's safety or expose confidential sources. Following this denial, Jangid escalated the matter to the Tamil Nadu State Information Commission (TNSIC), which subsequently directed the DVAC to release the information, leading to the government's challenge in the Madras High Court.

The court explicitly stated that the detailed enquiry concerned allegations of corruption investigated by the DVAC, thereby rendering Section 24(4) an insufficient basis for a complete bar on the information requested. This ruling by the Madras High Court on the DVAC RTI corruption exemption is a significant development for public accountability and the Right to Information Act corruption cases.

This judgment empowers individuals and legal practitioners to challenge blanket exemptions claimed by vigilance and anti-corruption directorates under the RTI Act, especially when seeking information related to corruption allegations. Lawyers can now cite this Madras High Court ruling to challenge blanket exemptions claimed by vigilance and anti-corruption directorates under the RTI Act, particularly when seeking information related to corruption allegations, thereby strengthening transparency and accountability in such investigations.

Lawyers can now cite this Madras High Court ruling to challenge blanket exemptions claimed by vigilance and anti-corruption directorates under the RTI Act, particularly when seeking information related to corruption allegations, thereby strengthening transparency and accountability in such investigations.

Source: Original reporting via legal news publication