Yes, you can file an RTI application to a Lokayukta or anti-corruption police body, and it must reply. The Supreme Court ruled on 15 June 2026 that such an investigating body is not an intelligence and security organisation, so it cannot hide behind the Section 24 exemption of the RTI Act, 2005. If a state told you its anti-corruption wing is exempt, that excuse no longer holds.
If you are short on time, read the corruption and human-rights proviso section below. It is your strongest lever even against a genuinely exempt body.
| Situation | Is RTI blocked? |
|---|---|
| Lokayukta or anti-corruption investigating police body | No. Must reply. |
| Genuine intelligence agency in the Second Schedule | Mostly exempt, with one big exception |
| Any exempt body, information about corruption | No. Must disclose |
| Any exempt body, information about human rights violation | No. Must disclose with approval |
| State notified its own anti-corruption wing as exempt | Invalid after the 2026 ruling |
The case is Special Police Establishment v. Kamta Prasad Mishra, 2026 INSC 644, decided on 15 June 2026 by a two-judge bench of Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar.
In 2011 the State of Madhya Pradesh issued a notification under Section 24(4) of the RTI Act. It exempted the Madhya Pradesh Special Police Establishment from the RTI Act. That body is the investigating wing of the Lokayukta organisation under the M.P. Lokayukt Evam Up-Lokayukt Adhiniyam, 1981.
A person caught in a corruption trap case asked for the file. He wanted to know how the Home Department decided to grant sanction to prosecute him under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. He also sought the Lokayukt's responses to queries.
The Court held that an anti-corruption or Lokayukta investigating police body is not an intelligence and security organisation within the meaning of Section 24. An exempt organisation must be one that deals with intelligence and security matters. An anti-corruption wing investigates graft. So the 2011 notification could not stand, and the body must respond to RTI requests.
Section 24 is narrow. It does not exempt every secretive office.
The key word is intelligence and security. A body qualifies only if it is empowered to go into intelligence and security matters. An anti-corruption police wing does not pass that test, however sensitive its files feel. That is the heart of the 2026 ruling.
Even a genuinely exempt body cannot stonewall you on graft. The proviso to Section 24 says that information pertaining to allegations of corruption and human rights violations is not excluded from disclosure.
This matters in two ways.
First, if the body is not really an intelligence agency, the whole exemption falls. That is what happened to the MP anti-corruption wing in 2026.
Second, even where a body is correctly listed in the Schedule, your corruption-related request still gets through. So frame your application around the corruption angle. State plainly that you seek information pertaining to allegations of corruption.
For more on how RTI and Lokayukta powers fit together, see RTI vs Lokpal and Lokayukta.
You can draft the request in minutes with the AI RTI Drafter tool.
To, The Public Information Officer [Name of Lokayukta / Anti-Corruption Police Body] [Address] Subject: Request for information under Section 6(1) of the RTI Act, 2005 Sir/Madam, Please provide the following information pertaining to allegations of corruption in [case / file reference]: 1. Certified copies of the file notings on the decision to grant or refuse sanction for prosecution under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 in the above matter. 2. The dates on which the sanction request was received, processed, and decided. 3. Copies of the responses given by the Lokayukta to queries raised in the above matter. Note: This information relates to allegations of corruption and is therefore not excluded under Section 24 of the RTI Act, 2005. I enclose the fee of Rs. 10. Kindly send the information within 30 days. Name: Address: Date: Signature:
No. The Supreme Court held in 2026 that an anti-corruption or Lokayukta investigating police body is not an intelligence and security organisation under Section 24. So it cannot claim the exemption. Quote Special Police Establishment v. Kamta Prasad Mishra, 2026 INSC 644, if it tries.
That notification is open to the same challenge that succeeded in 2026. The Court struck down the Madhya Pradesh notification because the body was not an intelligence and security organisation. Cite the ruling in your first appeal and ask the body to apply it.
Yes. The proviso to Section 24 says information pertaining to allegations of corruption and human rights violations is not excluded. So even a body correctly listed in the Second Schedule must disclose corruption-related information.
You can seek file notings, the sanction-for-prosecution process, dates of processing, and the body's responses to queries, where these relate to corruption. The applicant in the 2026 case sought exactly this kind of process information about a prosecution sanction.
The PIO must reply within 30 days of receiving your application. If your request involves the life or liberty of a person, the reply is due in 48 hours. No reply by the deadline counts as a deemed refusal you can appeal.
File a first appeal to the First Appellate Officer within 30 days of the missed deadline. If that fails, file a second appeal or complaint with the State Information Commission. Keep copies of your application and postal receipts as proof.