Which kinds of information sit inside the Vigilance Bureau sections exempted from RTI Act? The Kerala High Court wants the State to say so on affidavit, in two PILs challenging an October 22 notification.
Kochi: Two public interest litigations against a notification dated October 22, 2026, which brought the T1 and T2 sections of the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau (VACB) within an exemption from the Right to Information (RTI) Act, came up before the Kerala High Court on Wednesday. The Court directed the State government to file an affidavit setting out the categories of information that fall under those sections, and posted the petitions after three weeks [Adv. P.K. Muralikrishnan v. State of Kerala and Others; Joy Kaitharath v. State of Kerala and Others].
Chief Justice Soumen Sen and Justice Syam Kumar V.M. sat as a Division Bench. The Court asked whether information about vigilance inquiries against officials falls within the T1 and T2 sections, observing that the sections deal with vigilance inquiries, intelligence inputs and other vigilance-proceeding information, much of which is sensitive.
The statute and what the sections handle
Section 24(4) permits a State Government to exempt intelligence and security organisations established by it, but its proviso says that information pertaining to allegations of corruption and human rights violations cannot be excluded from disclosure. The T1 section keeps confidential reports, personal files and top-secret documents and handles confidential verifications, while T2 processes weekly diaries of vigilance officers, intelligence inputs, source reports and public complaints received through secure channels. The State’s substantive position was not recorded at the hearing, and its affidavit on the categories of information is awaited.
The challenge to the notification
The notification added T1 and T2 to the organisations exempted under Section 24(4) of the RTI Act, which allows a State Government to exempt specified intelligence and security organisations by notification in the Official Gazette. The petitioners argue that the VACB is a criminal investigation agency functioning under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and not an intelligence or security body. It was not among the eight organisations exempted by the State’s government order of February 7, 2006, they say, and an exemption cannot be created by administrative classification or labelling.
The petitioners allege that VACB Public Information Officers and First Appellate Authorities are already relying on the notification to refuse requests about vigilance inquiries, preliminary verifications, closure reports and prosecution sanctions. They rely on a recent Supreme Court ruling in Special Police Establishment v. Kamta Prasad Mishra, which, they say, held that the Special Police Establishment cannot be treated as an intelligence and security organisation under Section 24(4). They also say the State had earlier withdrawn a similar exemption after it was challenged in the High Court. Their submission, as recorded, was:
“As far as the vigilance enquiries against officials are concerned the public have a right to know”
Reliefs sought
The petitions seek to quash the October 22 notification and a declaration that T1 and T2 are not intelligence or security organisations under Section 24(4). In the alternative, they ask for a declaration that the notification cannot be used to refuse information on complaints, inquiries, closure, prosecution sanctions or outcomes, and a direction that the VACB continue to be treated as subject to the RTI Act for non-exempt information. They also seek a direction to the Kerala State Information Commission to decide pending and future appeals without relying on the notification, and production of the records and reasons behind the decision. These are the petitioners’ contentions, and the Court has expressed no view on them.
Case Title: Adv. P.K. Muralikrishnan v. State of Kerala and Others [WP(PIL) No. 215 of 2026] and Joy Kaitharath v. State of Kerala and Others [WP(PIL) No. 216 of 2026]
Bench: Chief Justice Soumen Sen and Justice Syam Kumar V.M., Kerala High Court
Date of Hearing: October 28, 2026
Appearances: Counsel for the petitioners; P. Sreekumar, Assistant Solicitor General of India, and M. Ajay, Standing Counsel, for the Kerala State Information Commission