The revoked order had sought to bring the entire Public (Law and Order) Department under Section 24(4) of the RTI Act, covering records on police firing, custodial deaths, alleged torture, communal clashes and other sensitive matters.
BY PC Bureau
September 27: The Tamil Nadu government has withdrawn its controversial decision to exempt the entire Public (Law and Order) Department from the Right to Information Act, 2005, after the sweeping order triggered sharp criticism from opposition parties, RTI activists and civil society.
The notification said Government Order Ms. No. 57 of the Human Resources Management (R) Department, dated September 21, 2026, “stands revoked.” The earlier order had invoked Section 24(4) of the RTI Act to classify the Public (Law and Order) Department as an intelligence and security organisation, effectively seeking to place its records outside the normal RTI framework.
The scope of the proposed exemption was unusually broad. The department deals with records and reports relating to police firing, custodial deaths, allegations of police torture, deaths of remand prisoners, security detentions, communal and caste clashes, requests for withdrawal of politically sensitive cases, and sanctions for prosecution relating to allegedly defamatory articles, news reports and speeches.
Had the exemption remained in force, access to information concerning several of these matters could have been significantly curtailed through RTI.
The move drew immediate political criticism. CPM MP Su Venkatesan described the exemption as an attempt to turn Tamil Nadu into a “police state” and demanded that the order be withdrawn.
Congress MP Karti Chidambaram also criticised the decision, saying that excluding information on matters such as police firing and custodial deaths would set a poor precedent for transparency and accountability. He argued that the RTI regime should be expanded rather than restricted.
The government had initially sought to defend the move. TVK minister CTR Nirmal Kumar said the intention was not to block all information and indicated that the exemption was primarily aimed at certain sensitive categories, including details of community clashes that were frequently sought through RTI. He said that if there was public dissatisfaction, the issue could be taken up with Chief Minister C. Joseph Vijay.
Another TVK minister, Raj Mohan, said freedom of expression would not be affected and that information required by the media would continue to be made available. He also cautioned against the use of government data for partisan purposes.
The government has now reversed the order following the backlash.
GO https://t.co/53DufjWnR3. 57 of Human Resources Management (R) department dated 21st September,2026, relating to exemption of the Public (Law and Order) Department under sub section (4) of section 24 of the RTI Act,2005, stands revoked. pic.twitter.com/0lq32CxAut
— Vignesh Theni (@Vignesh_twitz) September 27, 2026
What Section 24 actually permits
Section 24 of the RTI Act provides a specific exemption for intelligence and security organisations. Under Section 24(1), central intelligence and security organisations listed in the Second Schedule are outside the Act, while Section 24(4) gives state governments the power to notify such organisations established by them through the Official Gazette.
The exemption, however, is not absolute.
READ: SIR Row: Gyanesh Kumar Under Fire, Supreme Court Feels the Heat
Even an organisation covered by Section 24 cannot withhold information relating to allegations of corruption or human-rights violations. Where human-rights violations are alleged, disclosure requires the approval of the Central Information Commission in the case of central organisations and the State Information Commission in the case of state organisations, and the information is to be provided within 45 days.
Every notification issued by a state government under Section 24(4) must also be laid before the state legislature.
That distinction is important in the Tamil Nadu case: Section 24 does not give a state government a general power to exempt any department merely because it handles sensitive information. The statutory power is specifically directed at intelligence and security organisations.
Tamil Nadu has previously used Section 24(4) to exempt specified police and intelligence-related organisations. A Madras High Court judgment records notifications covering bodies including the Special Branch CID, “Q” Branch CID, Special Division and Security Branch, as well as a wider list of police-related organisations under earlier government orders.
The Madras High Court has also held that the expression “intelligence and security organisation” in Section 24(4) should not necessarily be read as requiring an organisation to perform both functions; an organisation performing an intelligence or security function can fall within the provision.
That legal background makes the now-revoked attempt to classify the Public (Law and Order) Department as a whole under Section 24 particularly significant.
How other states use Section 24
Section 24 exemptions are not unique to Tamil Nadu. State governments have used Section 24(4) to exclude specified intelligence and security organisations from the RTI Act.
For example, the Haryana framework has included organisations such as the State Criminal Investigation Department/Crime Branch, Haryana Armed Police, Security Organisation of Police, Police Telecommunication Organisation, India Reserve Battalion and Commando units. The exemption remains subject to the statutory safeguards concerning corruption and human-rights violations.
Tamil Nadu’s own RTI Commission lists state-notified intelligence and security agencies as excluded organisations while expressly noting that the exclusion is not absolute because information concerning allegations of corruption and human-rights violations remains subject to the provisos in Section 24.
The broader pattern, therefore, is that Section 24 has generally been used to protect specifically identified intelligence, security and specialised police organisations, rather than as a blanket exemption for ordinary administrative departments.
The controversy in Tamil Nadu arose because the September 21 order attempted to bring the Public (Law and Order) Department itself within that exceptional category. The government has now withdrawn that order
