Organisations excluded from RTI

Polity & Governance glossary

Also called: Section 24 of the RTI Act · Topic: Transparency, Accountability and e-Governance · NCERT: Beyond NCERT

Meaning

Organisations excluded from RTI are the intelligence and security bodies listed in the Second Schedule of the RTI Act, 2005. Under Section 24, the Act does not apply to them at all, except for information about corruption and human-rights violations [1].

This matters because it is the only part of the Act that shuts out a whole organisation, not just one kind of information. It also raises a hard question: how do we keep security work secret and still hold powerful agencies to account?

Explanation

How the exclusion works

  • The general rule: under the RTI Act, giving out information is the rule. Refusing is the exception.
  • The Act has four kinds of limits:
  • s.8(1): ten grounds for refusing a type of information.
  • s.9: information that would break someone else's copyright.
  • s.24 with the Second Schedule: whole organisations kept outside the Act.

  • s.8(3): a 20-year time limit, after which most exemptions end.

  • s.24(1): the Act does not apply to the intelligence and security organisations set up by the Central Government and listed in the Second Schedule [1].

  • So a citizen usually cannot file an ordinary RTI request with these bodies, whatever the subject.

Which bodies are on the list

  • The 2005 list includes [1]:
  • IB (Intelligence Bureau) and R&AW (Research and Analysis Wing);
  • Directorate of Revenue Intelligence and Central Economic Intelligence Bureau;
  • Directorate of Enforcement (ED) and Narcotics Control Bureau;
  • Aviation Research Centre and Special Frontier Force;

  • BSF, CRPF and ITBP.

  • Other listed bodies: NTRO, CISF, NSG, Assam Rifles, SSB and SPG.

  • The CBI was added in 2011. It was not on the original 2005 list.
  • Changing the list: the Central Government can add or remove organisations by a notification in the Official Gazette (the government's official journal) [1]. Parliament does not need to pass a new law for this.

The exception: corruption and human rights (the proviso)

A proviso is a clause that makes an exception to the main rule. Here, information about allegations of corruption and human-rights violations is not excluded [1].

  • Corruption information:

  • It follows the normal RTI process.

  • Human-rights information:

  • It needs the approval of the Central Information Commission (CIC).
  • It must be supplied within 45 days of the request.

States can exclude their own bodies

  • s.24(4): a state government can notify its own intelligence and security bodies, and they are then excluded.
  • The same corruption and human-rights exception applies to these state bodies.

In the Constitution and practice

  • Legal basis: this comes from an ordinary law, not the Constitution. It is in Section 24 and the Second Schedule of the Right to Information Act, 2005 [1].
  • Who uses it:
  • The Central Government adds bodies to the list by Gazette notification [1].
  • State governments use s.24(4) for their own agencies.

  • The CIC decides whether human-rights information should be released.

  • Key instance: the CBI added in 2011.

  • The CBI is an investigating agency, not mainly an intelligence or border-security force.
  • Critics said adding it stretched the meaning of "intelligence and security organisations".

  • Now people have to rely mostly on the corruption proviso to question it.

  • How it fits with the rest of the Act:

  • s.22 gives the RTI Act overriding effect over the Official Secrets Act, 1923 and other laws where they conflict.
  • s.8(2) allows exempt information to be released if the public interest is greater than the harm to the protected interest.
  • But for Second Schedule bodies the starting point is different: the Act itself does not apply to them, except through the corruption and human-rights proviso.

Don't confuse with

  • s.8(1) exemptions: these protect types of information, such as security information under s.8(1)(a) or cabinet papers under s.8(1)(i), held by any public authority. s.24 keeps whole organisations outside the Act.
  • s.8(1)(a) (security and sovereignty): any ministry can refuse security information under this clause, and it does not end after 20 years. s.24 only covers bodies named in the Second Schedule.
  • Political parties and the PM CARES Fund: these are outside RTI because their status as a "public authority" under s.2(h) is disputed. They are not listed in the Second Schedule.
  • s.24(4) state notifications vs. the Second Schedule: the Second Schedule lists Central bodies. State intelligence and security bodies are excluded only if the state government notifies them under s.24(4).

Prelims Hooks

  • s.24 + Second Schedule = intelligence and security organisations of the Central Government that are kept outside the RTI Act [1].
  • CBI was added in 2011. It was not on the original 2005 list. This is a common "which of the following" trap.
  • ED, DRI and the Narcotics Control Bureau are on the 2005 list, along with IB, R&AW, BSF, CRPF and ITBP [1].
  • Proviso: information on corruption and human-rights violations is still available. Human-rights information needs CIC approval and must be given within 45 days [1].
  • Changing the list: done by the Central Government through a notification in the Official Gazette, not by a constitutional amendment [1].
  • s.24(4): state governments can exclude their own intelligence and security bodies, with the same corruption and human-rights exception.

Mains Points

  • Security vs. accountability:
  • Keeping intelligence and security bodies out of RTI protects their operations, their sources and national security.

  • But a blanket exclusion means wrongdoing can stay hidden. That is why the corruption and human-rights proviso is the key safeguard, and it needs strict, timely enforcement by the CIC.

  • Including the CBI (2011) was criticised:

  • The CBI is an investigating agency that handles corruption cases against public officials.

  • Excluding it weakens public checks on how it works. It also shows that the government can widen the Second Schedule by notification alone, without a debate in Parliament.

  • Reform ideas:

  • Limit the Second Schedule to bodies whose main work is truly intelligence or security.
  • Give clear reasons in each Gazette notification.
  • Reduce delays and vacancies in information commissions, so that the 45-day limit for human-rights information means something in practice.

Related concepts

Read more

Sources

  1. 1India Code, Right to Information Act, 2005, Section 24 and Second Scheduleindiacode.nic.in · tier 1