The Madras High Court has held that the DVAC cannot claim blanket exemption from RTI Act protection, ruling that Section 24(4) does not shield information relating to allegations of corruption.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
Chennai: The Madras High Court has dismissed a writ petition by the State of Tamil Nadu and upheld a State Information Commission order directing the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption (DVAC) to disclose enquiry records to a retired Director General of Police, holding that the DVAC cannot claim a blanket exemption from the Right to Information Act in matters of corruption [State of Tamil Nadu v. Tamil Nadu State Information Commission and Another].
Justice Hemant Chandangoudar confirmed the Commission’s order dated May 30, 2024 and dismissed the writ petition without costs.
The case
In January 2021, retired DGP S.R. Jangid filed an RTI application seeking enquiry reports dated December 30, 2013 and August 6, 2015, statements recorded by the enquiry officer, queries raised by the government and documents collected during the DVAC enquiry. The DVAC rejected the request under Section 8(1)(g) of the RTI Act, which exempts information that could endanger the safety of a person or reveal confidential sources.
In May 2024, the State Information Commission directed disclosure after masking the names of two other officers. The State challenged that order, arguing that disclosure could endanger witnesses and sources, and relied on Rule 29 of the DVAC Manual, which treats enquiry information as confidential.
What the Court said
On Section 24(4), the Court accepted that the DVAC is an organisation covered by the exemption, but held that the proviso does not extend to corruption-related information:
“such exemption does not apply to information relating to allegations of corruption”
Turning to Section 8(1)(g), the Court held that a bare apprehension of danger is not enough and that the State had placed no material before it showing a specific threat to any witness or source:
“A general assertion that disclosure may affect the safety of witnesses or third parties is not sufficient”
On the DVAC Manual, the Court held that an internal instruction cannot enlarge the statutory exemptions:
“cannot create an exemption which is not contained in the RTI Act”
The Court also noted that the enquiry against Jangid had been closed in his favour, so he was entitled to records substantially concerning the proceedings against him, and that the volume of records could not turn disclosable information into exempt information.
The directions
The Court kept the masking condition in place:
“The names and particulars of the other officers shall be masked as directed by the Information Commission.”
Severable exempt portions may be masked under Section 10, while the rest of the enquiry record must be furnished. The ruling is not an unrestricted right to every document, and genuinely private information about unrelated third parties may still be protected.
Why the judgment matters
Anti-corruption bodies listed in the Second Schedule to the RTI Act are often assumed to be closed to every request. The ruling reads the Section 24(4) proviso at face value: the exemption for such organisations does not reach information about corruption allegations, and the organisation must justify withholding with material, not with general apprehension.
It also reaffirms that departmental manuals and internal confidentiality rules cannot create exemptions that Parliament did not enact, while leaving room for masking of third-party details under Section 10.
Case Title: State of Tamil Nadu v. Tamil Nadu State Information Commission and Another [W.P. No. 22237 of 2024]
Bench: Justice Hemant Chandangoudar, Madras High Court
Date of Order: October 9, 2026
Appearances: State Public Prosecutor R. Johnsathyan, assisted by Government Advocate (Criminal Side) N. Palanivel, for the State; Standing Counsel C. Vigneshwaran for the State Information Commission; Advocate Nithyaesh Nataraj for retired DGP S.R. Jangid