Light on truth

---

1. At a Glance

• Tamil Nadu used a State power under the RTI Act, 2005 to exempt its Public (Law and Order) Department from the Act by labelling it an "intelligence and security organisation". Protests forced the State to withdraw the order [1].
• The episode is a textbook case of the transparency vs. secrecy tension in governance. It covers Section 24 (exempted organisations), the executive's accountability to the legislature, and the executive's duty not to weaken RTI through the back door [1].
• UPSC relevance: GS-II (transparency, accountability, statutory bodies, RTI), GS-IV (probity, the right to information as a governance ethic), and Prelims (structure of the RTI Act).

2. Why in the News

• 21 Sept 2026: the Tamil Nadu government issued a Government Order (G.O.) under Section 24(4), RTI Act. It notified the Public (Law and Order) Department as an "intelligence and security organisation" to which the Act would not apply [1].
• 22 Sept 2026: the department's designated RTI authorities began citing the G.O. to refuse information, before the order was public [1].
• 27 Sept 2026: the G.O. first appeared in the public domain [1].
• Political parties and transparency activists protested. State Law Minister C.T.R. Nirmalkumar first defended the order, then announced its withdrawal without giving reasons [1].
• The Hindu editorial "Light on truth" (29 Sept 2026, p. 8, Chennai edition) argued that "no government intent on working for the people should fear transparency" [1].

3. Background & Evolution

• Right to know as a constitutional right [2]: the Supreme Court read it into Article 19(1)(a) in State of U.P. v. Raj Narain (1975) and S.P. Gupta v. Union of India (1981).
• Earlier laws [2]: State RTI laws such as Tamil Nadu's (1997) came first. The Freedom of Information Act, 2002 was passed but never notified.
• RTI Act, 2005 [2]: enacted in June 2005 and fully in force from 12 Oct 2005. It repealed the 2002 Act.
• RTI (Amendment) Act, 2019 [2]: gave the Centre power to set the tenure and pay of Information Commissioners.
• DPDP Act, 2023 [2]: amended Section 8(1)(j), widening the personal-information exemption.
• 2026 TN episode: the Section 24(4) notification was withdrawn after protests [1].

4. Core Static Facts

Item	Fact
Statute	Right to Information Act, 2005 [1]
Provision used by TN	Section 24(4): the State government can notify State intelligence and security organisations to which the Act does not apply [1]
Legislative check	Section 24(5): every such notification must be laid before the State Legislature [1]
Central counterpart	Section 24(1) + Second Schedule: the list of exempted Central intelligence and security organisations [2]
Proviso to Section 24	Exempted organisations still must disclose information on allegations of corruption and human rights violations. Human-rights information needs the approval of the Information Commission and must be given within 45 days [2]
General exemptions	Section 8 (sovereignty, security, and similar grounds) and Section 9 (copyright) [2]
Proactive disclosure	Section 4 [2]
Nodal department (Centre)	Department of Personnel & Training (DoPT) [2]
TN department involved	Public (Law and Order) Department [1]
Stated reason for the G.O.	To protect sensitive details of district-level inquiries into communal clashes and similar incidents [1]

5. Multi-Dimensional Analysis

Legal / Constitutional

• Section 24(4) is meant for genuine intelligence and security bodies. Using it for a whole line department, the Public (Law and Order) Department, stretches the provision's purpose [1].
• The order was applied before it was published, and there is no sign it was laid before the legislature under Section 24(5). That raises questions about procedural legality [1].
• Section 8 already protects sensitive security information item by item. A blanket exemption for a whole organisation is therefore disproportionate [2].

Ethical / Governance

• The editorial says the episode "exposed the political class's penchant for maintaining secrecy in administrative affairs" [1].
• Officials refused information from 22 Sept, before the order was public. The editorial reads this as a system "shy of investing in transparency" [1].
• The G.O. was withdrawn without explanation, which is itself a lapse in accountability [1].

Administrative

• Designated RTI authorities began citing an unpublished order straight away. This shows the gap between issuing an order and the public being told about it [1].
• The minister said the exemption covered only part of the department, but the order's wording was wider. That mismatch creates confusion for Public Information Officers and applicants [1].

Social / Security

• The State's concern was real: information on communal clashes can be sensitive. The more proportionate options are Section 8(1)(a), (g) and (h) exemptions applied case by case [1] [2].
• Civil-society protest reversed the decision within days, which shows how strong the RTI constituency is [1].

Federal

• States have their own power under Section 24(4), parallel to the Centre's Second Schedule. The episode shows how State executives can narrow a central law's reach [1] [2].

6. Recent Developments (last 12–18 months)

• 21 Sept 2026: TN G.O. under Section 24(4) exempts the Public (Law and Order) Department [1].
• 22 Sept 2026: RTI requests to the department are refused on the basis of the G.O. [1].
• 27 Sept 2026: the G.O. becomes public [1].
• Late Sept 2026: after protests, the Law Minister announces the G.O.'s withdrawal [1].
• 29 Sept 2026: The Hindu editorial "Light on truth" [1].
• No other recent developments were verified from whitelisted sources in this session.

7. Prelims Hooks

• Section 24(4) of the RTI Act lets a State government exclude State intelligence and security organisations from the Act [1].
• Section 24(5): a State's exemption notification must be laid before the State Legislature [1].
• Central intelligence and security organisations exempt from RTI are listed in the Second Schedule [2].
• Even exempted organisations must share information on corruption and human rights violation allegations [2].
• Information on human-rights allegations from exempted bodies needs Information Commission approval and must be given within 45 days [2].
• The RTI Act came fully into force on 12 October 2005 [2].
• Section 8 lists the general exemptions; Section 4 requires proactive (suo motu) disclosure [2].
• The Section 8(1)(j) personal-information exemption was amended by the DPDP Act, 2023 [2].
• The right to information is read into Article 19(1)(a) (Raj Narain, 1975) [2].
• In Sept 2026, TN tried to exempt its Public (Law and Order) Department under Section 24(4), then withdrew the order [1].

8. The Centre Opened This Door First

• Tamil Nadu copied a pattern the Centre had already set
• The Second Schedule (the list at the end of the RTI Act of Central bodies kept outside the Act) is meant for intelligence and security organisations [3].
• But it also names the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and the National Investigation Agency (NIA) [3]. These agencies investigate crimes. They are not purely spy agencies.

• Once investigating agencies can be called 'security organisations', a State can argue that its law-and-order department fits the same label. That is the argument behind the TN G.O. [1].

• This matters in an answer

• Criticising only Tamil Nadu is one-sided. The Section 24 label has already been stretched at the Centre [3].
• A balanced answer says both levels of government use a loose meaning of 'security organisation', and the Act does not define the term tightly enough to stop them.

9. The State's Best Argument, and Why It Still Fails

• What the State gets right
• Reports of district inquiries into communal clashes can name people, places and groups. If they come out early, fresh violence can follow. This was the State's stated reason [1].

• Under Section 8, a Public Information Officer (PIO, the official who answers RTI requests) has to judge each request one by one. That is slow, and a wrong call can leak something sensitive. A blanket exemption gives officers one clear rule.

• Why the blanket exemption still does not work

• Even exempted bodies must share information on allegations of corruption and human rights violations [3]. So Section 24 never gives full secrecy.
• Inquiries into communal clashes are where human-rights complaints come up most often: police firing, custodial abuse, failure to protect people. The part the State most wanted to hide is the part the proviso (the exception clause) keeps open.

• So the G.O. blocked routine information, such as files, orders and staffing, while the most sensitive material stayed open to requests. It kept secret the wrong things.

• The fair conclusion

• The State had a real need, but it is a need for protection record by record, not for the whole department. The minister also said only part of the department was meant to be covered [1]. That admits the order was drafted too widely.

10. Why the Legislature Check Came Too Late

• Laying the order before the House is a check after the event, not before it
• Section 24(5) requires the State to lay the notification before the State Legislature (formally place it before the House) [1].
• But the order took effect on 21 Sept, and officers used it to refuse requests on 22 Sept [1]. Harm to applicants began before any MLA could see it.

• The public saw the G.O. only on 27 Sept [1]. For six days, citizens were refused under a rule they could not read, so they could not challenge it.

• Protest did the job the institutions did not

• The order was reversed by protests from parties and activists, not by the legislature or the State Information Commission [1].

• A safeguard that works only when civil society happens to notice is weak. The next such order may not be noticed.

• Withdrawal without reasons leaves the door open

• The minister gave no reasons for the withdrawal [1]. There is no public record of why the order was wrong, so nothing stops a similar G.O. later.

11. Why the Referee Is Weaker Since 2019

• Information Commissions judge the government, but the government now sets their terms
• The original RTI Act gave Information Commissioners a fixed five-year term. It linked State commissioners' pay to that of a Chief Secretary [4].

• The RTI (Amendment) Act, 2019 removed the fixed term. It let the Central government notify the tenure, salary and service conditions of Central and State commissioners [4].

• What this means for cases like Tamil Nadu's

• An applicant refused under a Section 24 G.O. goes on appeal to the State Information Commission.
• That commission must now rule against a government whose side of the system controls its members' tenure and pay [4]. A commissioner with a secure term can more easily say no to the executive.
• So even if the exemption is challenged, the body hearing the challenge has less independence than the 2005 law intended.

12. What Should Follow the Withdrawal

• Tamil Nadu government: publish the withdrawal order and its reasons

• The withdrawal was only announced by the minister, with no reasons [1]. A published G.O. with reasons creates a record for PIOs and courts.

• Public (Law and Order) Department: re-open requests refused from 22 Sept

• Requests were refused under the G.O. from 22 Sept [1]. Those applicants should get fresh replies under the normal Act. They should not have to file again.

• State government: use Section 8 for the sensitive files, not Section 24

• Specific communal-inquiry records can be withheld case by case under the security and investigation grounds of Section 8, with reasons recorded. The corruption and human-rights proviso stays available as it does for all bodies [3].

• Parliament: make Section 24 notifications public before they take effect

• At present, the TN order worked for six days before anyone outside government saw it [1]. A rule that a notification takes effect only after it is published would close this gap.

• The same test should apply to the Centre's own list, which already includes investigating agencies like the CBI and NIA [3].

• Parliament: bring back fixed terms for Information Commissioners

• Restoring the original five-year term, removed in 2019, would protect the commissions that hear appeals against such orders [4].

13. Anchors for Answers

• Law/Case: RTI Act 2005, Section 24(4) (State power to exempt) and 24(5) (laying before the Legislature) [1]. The proviso to Section 24 keeps corruption and human-rights information open [3]. The right to know is part of Article 19(1)(a) (State of U.P. v. Raj Narain, 1975).
• Law/Case: RTI (Amendment) Act, 2019 removed the fixed five-year term for Information Commissioners and let the Centre set their tenure and pay [4].
• Comparison: The Centre's Second Schedule already lists investigating agencies such as the CBI and NIA, not only intelligence bodies. Tamil Nadu's order stretched the same label [3].
• Report/Committee: 2nd Administrative Reforms Commission, First Report, "Right to Information: Master Key to Good Governance" (2006).

14. Mains Relevance

• GS-II: transparency and accountability; e-governance; statutory, regulatory and quasi-judicial bodies (Information Commissions); Centre–State relations.
• GS-IV: probity in governance; the right to information; codes of conduct; citizen's charters.
• Possible question stems: 1. "The power under Section 24 of the RTI Act, 2005 was meant to be a narrow security carve-out, not a tool of administrative secrecy." Discuss with recent examples. (GS-II, 15 marks) 2. Examine the safeguards in the RTI Act against misuse of exemptions, and suggest reforms to strengthen legislative and judicial oversight of such notifications. (GS-II, 10 marks) 3. "No government intent on working for the people should fear transparency." Discuss the ethical case for openness in public administration. (GS-IV, 10 marks)

15. Related Topics to Study Next

• RTI (Amendment) Act, 2019: shifted the Information Commissions' independence toward executive control.
• DPDP Act, 2023 and Section 8(1)(j): a new tension between privacy and transparency.
• Official Secrets Act, 1923: the colonial secrecy law that still sits alongside RTI (Section 22 overriding effect).
• Whistle Blowers Protection Act, 2014: a complementary accountability law.
• Central and State Information Commissions: vacancies and pendency that weaken RTI enforcement.
• 2nd ARC Report 1 ("Right to Information: Master Key to Good Governance"): the reform benchmark.
• Delegated legislation and laying procedures: legislative scrutiny of executive notifications.

16. Common Errors / Trap Areas

• Section 8 vs. Section 24: Section 8 exempts categories of information; Section 24 exempts whole organisations.
• Assuming Second Schedule bodies are fully outside RTI: the corruption and human-rights proviso still applies.
• Section 24(4) vs. 24(5): 24(4) is the State's power to notify; 24(5) is the duty to lay the notification before the legislature [1].
• Nodal ministry: the DoPT under the Ministry of Personnel handles RTI, not MHA or the Law Ministry.
• Date traps: the RTI Act was enacted in June 2005 but came fully into force on 12 Oct 2005. The TN order was issued on 21 Sept 2026 but surfaced on 27 Sept 2026 [1].