Tamil Nadu withdraws order that kept its law and order department out of RTI
Can a State simply declare one of its departments a security agency and shut it out of the RTI Act?
Published 28 September 2026. Written by Pratidin from the reports linked at the end; every fact checked by a separate review before publishing. How we work
The Tamil Nadu government on Sunday, 27 September 2026, rescinded a Government Order that had exempted the Public (Law and Order) Department from the Right to Information Act, 2005. The order, dated 21 September and issued by the Human Resources Management Department, had used Section 24(4) of the Act to treat the department as an intelligence and security organisation. The reversal followed strong criticism from Opposition parties, from some allies of the ruling party, and from transparency groups.
The Public (Law and Order) Department handles communal and caste clashes, Commissions of Inquiry, detentions under COFEPOSA and the National Security Act, inquiries into police firing and custodial deaths, and monthly law and order reviews. Critics included DMK MP Kanimozhi, Congress leader Karti Chidambaram, VCK leader Thirumavalavan, CPI(M) MP Su. Venkatesan, PMK leader Anbumani Ramadoss and the anti-corruption NGO Arappor Iyakkam. They argued that the order would reduce transparency on sensitive matters such as custodial deaths and police action during protests.
Section 24 of the RTI Act keeps intelligence and security organisations outside the Act, listing central bodies in the Second Schedule and allowing State governments to notify their own under sub-section (4). The provisos, however, say that information on allegations of corruption and human rights violations cannot be withheld even by such bodies. Using Section 24 for a general administrative department, rather than a genuine intelligence agency, is why the order drew criticism. The episode adds to a wider debate on the dilution of RTI, including the 2019 amendment on Information Commissioners' tenure and salaries.
Prelims facts
- Section 24 of the RTI Act, 2005 excludes intelligence and security organisations; central bodies are listed in the Second Schedule and States may notify their own bodies under Section 24(4).
- Even exempted bodies must disclose information on allegations of corruption and human rights violations; information on human rights violations is given only with the approval of the Information Commission.
- The RTI (Amendment) Act, 2019 allowed the Central Government to prescribe the tenure and salaries of the Central and State Information Commissioners.
Quick recall
- Which section of the RTI Act deals with exclusion of intelligence and security organisations?
- Section 24.
- Where are the excluded central organisations listed?
- The Second Schedule of the RTI Act.
- Which sub-section lets a State exclude its own organisations?
- Section 24(4).
- What information must still be given by excluded bodies?
- Information on allegations of corruption and of human rights violations.
- Who must approve release of human rights violation information by an excluded body?
- The Information Commission (Central or State, as the case may be).
- Which department did Tamil Nadu try to exclude?
- The Public (Law and Order) Department.
- When was the Tamil Nadu order rescinded?
- Sunday, 27 September 2026.
- What did the RTI (Amendment) Act, 2019 change?
- It let the Centre prescribe the tenure and salaries of Information Commissioners.
Prelims practice question
Under the Right to Information Act, 2005, which of the following categories of information cannot be withheld even by an intelligence or security organisation excluded under Section 24?
1. Information pertaining to allegations of corruption
2. Information pertaining to allegations of human rights violations
Select the correct answer using the code given below:
- 1 only
- 2 only
- Both 1 and 2
- Neither 1 nor 2
Show answer
Answer: (c) Both 1 and 2. The provisos to Section 24 keep information on allegations of corruption and human rights violations within the Act even for excluded organisations; the latter needs the approval of the Information Commission.
Use this in UPSC Mains: previous-year questions
Recurring theme: Transparency, the RTI Act and accountability in governance
- How to use this
Use it to state the 2019 amendment's change and show another, parallel route of RTI dilution: removing whole departments from the Act through exemptions.
- The RTI (Amendment) Act, 2019 allowed the Central Government to prescribe the tenure and salaries of Central and State Information Commissioners.
- On 21 September 2026 Tamil Nadu used Section 24(4) to exempt its Public (Law and Order) Department as an intelligence and security organisation, withdrawing the order on 27 September after criticism.
- Suggest empowering State Information Commissions to review Section 24(4) notifications, and preferring record-by-record Section 8 exemptions to blanket exclusions.
- How to use this
Use it to show RTI as an instrument of accountability on the most sensitive state actions, and citizens and parties defending that space.
- Tamil Nadu's exempted Public (Law and Order) Department handles custodial deaths, police firing inquiries, communal and caste clashes, and NSA and COFEPOSA detentions, matters of public accountability.
- Provisos to Section 24 say information on allegations of corruption and human rights violations cannot be withheld even by exempted intelligence and security bodies.
- The order was rescinded within a week after criticism from Opposition parties, ruling-party allies and the anti-corruption NGO Arappor Iyakkam.
Useful to contrast a voluntary instrument like the Citizen's Charter with a statutory right like RTI, whose exemptions must be narrowly used.
Mains practice question
The Right to Information Act, 2005 permits governments to exclude intelligence and security organisations from its scope. Using the recent Tamil Nadu episode, discuss the risks of misusing this exemption and suggest safeguards. (150 words)
Model answer
The RTI Act, 2005 made information a tool of accountability. Section 24 allows the Centre (through the Second Schedule) and the States (under Section 24(4)) to keep genuine intelligence and security organisations outside the Act. Tamil Nadu's order of 21 September 2026 applying this to its Public (Law and Order) Department, withdrawn on 27 September after protests, shows how the exemption can be stretched.
Risks of misuse
- Wrong target: the department deals with custodial deaths, police firing inquiries, NSA and COFEPOSA detentions; these are matters of public accountability, not covert intelligence.
- Blanket secrecy: a whole department escapes scrutiny instead of specific sensitive records.
- Chilling effect on rights: victims of custodial violence lose a key route to records.
- Precedent: other States may follow, hollowing out the Act.
Safeguards already in law
- Provisos to Section 24 keep information on corruption and human rights violations within the Act.
- Section 8 already exempts information that would harm security or impede investigation, record by record.
- Under Section 24(5), every notification issued under Section 24(4) must be laid before the State Legislature.
Way forward
- Limit Section 24(4) to bodies whose main function is intelligence or security, with reasons published.
- Prefer Section 8 exemptions to blanket exclusions.
- Empower State Information Commissions to review such notifications.
- Proactive disclosure under Section 4 on custodial deaths and police action.
The quick reversal shows that public scrutiny still works. The better remedy is clear limits, so that exemptions stay the exception.
The basics
Why this matters
The RTI Act is one of the few laws that lets an ordinary citizen demand records from the State. Its value is greatest where power is used most coercively: police action, detention and deaths in custody. Tamil Nadu's short-lived order would have closed that window for one of the most sensitive departments in the State. Understanding Section 24 helps you judge when secrecy is legitimate and when it becomes a shield against accountability.
What the order did
The Human Resources Management Department issued a Government Order on 21 September that notified the Public (Law and Order) Department under Section 24(4), treating it as an intelligence and security organisation. That department does not run spies; it handles communal and caste clashes, Commissions of Inquiry, NSA and COFEPOSA detentions, and inquiries into police firing and custodial deaths. Placing it outside the Act would have ended routine RTI requests on these subjects.
- 1Communal and caste clashesMonitoring and response
- 2NSA and COFEPOSAPreventive detention matters
- 3Police firing and custodial deathsInquiries and follow-up
- 4Commissions of InquiryAppointment and follow-up
How Section 24 is meant to work
Section 24 recognises that some bodies, like intelligence agencies, cannot function under full disclosure. Central bodies appear in the Second Schedule; States may notify their own by a notification that must be laid before the legislature. Two provisos keep a floor of accountability: information on allegations of corruption and on human rights violations must still be given, the second only after approval of the Information Commission. Section 8 separately allows specific records to be withheld when disclosure would harm security.
- Whole organisation outside the Act
- Meant for intelligence and security bodies
- Corruption and human rights information still covered
- Applies record by record
- Covers security, investigation, privacy and more
- Public interest can override some exemptions
The backlash and the reversal
The order drew criticism across party lines. Opposition leaders such as DMK MP Kanimozhi and PMK's Anbumani Ramadoss, allies such as Congress leader Karti Chidambaram and VCK leader Thirumavalavan, CPI(M) MP Su. Venkatesan, and the NGO Arappor Iyakkam all objected. Their concern was that records on custodial deaths and police action at protests would disappear from public view. Within a week the government withdrew the order.
- 21 Sep 2026G.O. notifies the department under Section 24(4)
- Before 27 SepOpposition, allies and activists object
- 27 Sep 2026Government rescinds the order
- 28 Sep 2026Reversal reported in the morning papers
The larger lesson
RTI has been weakened in several ways over the years: vacancies in Information Commissions, the 2019 amendment on tenure and salaries, and wider use of exemptions. The Tamil Nadu episode shows that public vigilance can still stop a dilution. The lasting fix is narrower drafting and review: Section 24(4) should cover only real intelligence bodies, reasons should be published, and Information Commissions should be able to question notifications that go beyond the Act's purpose.
You now know
- Tamil Nadu's G.O. of 21 September 2026 exempted the Public (Law and Order) Department from RTI under Section 24(4).
- The order was rescinded on 27 September 2026 after protests from Opposition, allies and activists.
- Section 24 provisos keep information on corruption and human rights violations within the Act.
- The department handles custodial deaths, police firing inquiries, and NSA and COFEPOSA detentions.
Go deeper
In one line: Tamil Nadu tried to take its law and order department out of the RTI Act by calling it a security organisation, then backed down within a week.
Why it matters for UPSC
RTI is a recurring topic in GS2 governance and GS4 probity. This story shows how an exemption meant for spies can be stretched to cover ordinary administration, and how public pressure can reverse it.
The core idea
The Right to Information Act, 2005 gives citizens access to government records. Section 24 Exemption lets governments exclude genuine intelligence and security bodies, but even they must disclose information on corruption and human rights violations. Tamil Nadu's department deals with Custodial Deaths and Police Accountability, which is why critics said the exemption was misplaced. Oversight bodies such as the Information Commissions are the usual guardians of the Act, but here political and civil society pressure did the job.
Numbers and dates to remember
- RTI Act: 2005.
- G.O. issued: 21 September 2026.
- G.O. rescinded: 27 September 2026.
- RTI (Amendment) Act: 2019.
Where to go next
- Right to Information Act, 2005: The law that lets citizens ask the State for records
- Section 24 Exemption: The clause that keeps spy agencies outside RTI
- Custodial Deaths and Police Accountability: Why records of police action matter
- Information Commissions: The watchdogs that enforce RTI
Go deeper: when is secrecy legitimate?
The Right to Information Act, 2005 balances two goods: open government and the protection of information that could genuinely harm the country. It does this in two layers. Section 8 lists categories of information that may be withheld, such as material that would harm security or impede an investigation, and allows public interest to override some of them. Section 24 Exemption goes further and takes whole organisations out of the Act, which is why it is reserved for intelligence and security bodies.
The Tamil Nadu case is instructive because the department concerned handles Custodial Deaths and Police Accountability. These are matters where human rights are directly engaged, and the proviso to Section 24 already recognises that such information cannot be fully hidden. A blanket exclusion would have forced citizens to rely on the narrow proviso, with approval from the Information Commissions, instead of the normal RTI route.
For answers, stress three points: exemptions must be narrow and reasoned; record-by-record exemptions under Section 8 are preferable to blanket exclusions; and legislative and Commission oversight of Section 24(4) notifications should be real, not formal.
Where to go next
- Right to Information Act, 2005: The law that lets citizens ask the State for records
- Section 24 Exemption: The clause that keeps spy agencies outside RTI
- Custodial Deaths and Police Accountability: Why records of police action matter
- Information Commissions: The watchdogs that enforce RTI
Right to Information Act, 2005
The law that lets citizens ask the State for records
In one line: The RTI Act lets any citizen ask a government office for information and get an answer within a fixed time.
How it works
You write a short application to the Public Information Officer of an office. Usually you must get a reply within 30 days. If you do not, you can appeal.
Why it matters
It helps people find out how money is spent, why decisions were taken, and whether rules were followed. It has exposed many cases of corruption.
Limits
Some information, like material that could harm national security, can be refused. A few intelligence and security agencies are kept outside the Act altogether.
Where to go next
- Section 24 Exemption: The clause that keeps spy agencies outside RTI
- Custodial Deaths and Police Accountability: Why records of police action matter
Section 24 Exemption
The clause that keeps spy agencies outside RTI
In one line: Section 24 keeps intelligence and security organisations outside the RTI Act.
Who is covered
Central agencies are listed in the Second Schedule of the Act. A State can add its own security bodies by notification under Section 24(4), which must be placed before the State Legislature.
The safety net
Even these bodies must give information about allegations of corruption. Information about human rights violations must also be given, but only after the Information Commission approves.
Why it was in the news
Tamil Nadu used this section for its law and order department, which is not a spy agency. After criticism, the order was withdrawn.
Where to go next
- Right to Information Act, 2005: The law that lets citizens ask the State for records
- Custodial Deaths and Police Accountability: Why records of police action matter
Custodial Deaths and Police Accountability
Why records of police action matter
In one line: A custodial death is the death of a person while in the custody of the police or another authority.
Why records matter
When someone dies in custody, families and the public need to know what happened. Inquiry reports, orders and files help establish the truth and fix responsibility.
Who checks
Magistrates hold inquiries, and bodies such as the National Human Rights Commission take up complaints. Courts can also order investigations.
The link to RTI
Tamil Nadu's law and order department follows up on inquiries into custodial deaths and police firing. Critics said removing it from RTI would make such cases harder to scrutinise.
Where to go next
- Right to Information Act, 2005: The law that lets citizens ask the State for records
- Section 24 Exemption: The clause that keeps spy agencies outside RTI
Information Commissions
The watchdogs that enforce RTI
In one line: Information Commissions hear appeals and complaints when people do not get the information they asked for under RTI.
Two levels
There is a Central Information Commission for Union bodies and a State Information Commission in each State.
What they can do
They can order an office to give information, and they can impose penalties on officers who refuse without good reason.
Recent debates
A 2019 amendment allowed the Centre to decide the tenure and salaries of Information Commissioners. Critics said this could reduce their independence. Vacancies in many Commissions have also slowed the hearing of appeals.
Where to go next
- Right to Information Act, 2005: The law that lets citizens ask the State for records
- Section 24 Exemption: The clause that keeps spy agencies outside RTI
Take the 28 September 2026 quiz: 30 Prelims-style questions with answers