Table of Contents
Section 24 — Act Not to Apply to Certain Organisations
Quick Reply: Section 24 carves the Second Schedule's intelligence and security organisations — 24 bodies from the Intelligence Bureau and RAW to the CBI, NIA, DRDO and NSC Secretariat — out of the Act entirely. Two things survive the carve-out: allegations of corruption, and allegations of human-rights violations. For human-rights allegations, disclosure needs the Central/State Information Commission's approval and must come within 45 days, overriding §7's clocks.
In one line: §24 is a total exemption for listed security bodies — but it is not a wall; corruption and human-rights requests pass through it, on a slower clock for the latter.
What the section says
- §24(1): nothing in the Act applies to the intelligence and security organisations specified in the Second Schedule (Central organisations), or to information furnished by them to the Central Government.
- First proviso: information on allegations of corruption and human-rights violations is not excluded.
- Second proviso: where the information sought is on human-rights violations, it may be given only after the approval of the Central Information Commission (or the State Information Commission for state bodies) — and, overriding §7, must be provided within 45 days of the request.
- §24(2)–(3): the Central Government may add to or omit from the Schedule by notification in the Official Gazette, laid before each House of Parliament. That is how the list grew from the original entries to today's 24.
- §24(4)–(5): State Governments may similarly notify their own intelligence and security organisations — with the same corruption and human-rights provisos.
The Second Schedule as it stands
- Intelligence Bureau; Research and Analysis Wing; Directorate of Revenue Intelligence; Central Economic Intelligence Bureau; Directorate of Enforcement; Narcotics Control Bureau.
- Aviation Research Centre; Special Frontier Force; the CAPFs — BSF, CRPF, ITBP, CISF, NSG, Assam Rifles, Sashastra Seema Bal.
- Directorate General of Income-tax (Investigation); National Technical Research Organisation; Financial Intelligence Unit; Special Protection Group; DRDO; Border Roads Development Board; National Security Council Secretariat; CBI; NIA.
The last group is the one that surprises applicants: the CBI and NIA are Second Schedule bodies — an RTI to them runs into §24 unless anchored in corruption or human-rights allegations (the CBI's own corruption-inquiry material has repeatedly been held disclosable on that footing by the Commission and courts).
§24 vs §8 — two different animals
| §8 exemptions | §24 exclusion | |
| Applies to | Every public authority | Only the Second Schedule / notified bodies |
| Nature | Information-level exemptions (per record) | Body-level carve-out (whole organisation) |
| Public-interest override | §8(2) and §8(3) tests | No override — only the corruption / HR proviso |
| Remedy | First and second appeal | Same appeals, but expect the §24 battle |
A PIO of a listed body cannot use §24 against a corruption allegation: the proviso removes it. A PIO of an unlisted body cannot invoke §24 at all — an “intelligence” label does not create the exemption.
Drafting the request that survives §24
- Anchor in the opening line: “This request concerns allegations of corruption, and is filed under the proviso to Section 24(1).”
- For human-rights matters, add the §18/§19 route and expect the 45-day clock and Commission-approval step.
- Ask for the documents that evidence the allegation — inquiry reports, file notings, correspondence — not conclusions.
- If the body claims §24 against a plain corruption ask, that misapplication is itself appealable.
FAQs
Is the CBI under RTI?
The CBI is a Second Schedule body — but its corruption-inquiry records are reachable through the §24(1) proviso. Anchor the request accordingly.
Does §24 apply to State police special units?
Only if the State Government notified them under §24(4). Many state special-investigation and intelligence units are so notified; the ordinary district police is not.
Why did my HR-allegation RTI to a CAPF take 45 days?
The second proviso to §24(1) expressly overrides §7 and allows 45 days for human-rights allegations. Corruption allegations do not carry that extension.
Can a listed body refuse even a corruption ask?
It can try — but the first proviso is statutory: corruption allegations “shall not be excluded”. Take it to appeal; the refusal itself is a strong ground.
Call to action
Drafting an anchored request or an appeal against a §24 refusal? Use the First RTI template and First Appeal template, or How to fill an RTI application.
Related
Sources
- Right to Information Act, 2005, Section 24 and the Second Schedule (as amended by notifications under §24(2)); RTI (Amendment) Act, 2019 (Commission-approval wording).
- The annotated current text on this wiki — the Second Schedule list above is reproduced from it.
- Department of Personnel and Training, Guide on the RTI Act, 2005.
Last reviewed on: 27 August 2026. The wrongly named schedule entry corrected to Central Economic Intelligence Bureau; the Schedule list completed to its current 24 bodies; the 45-day and Commission-approval provisos stated precisely; two unverifiable case notes dropped.