📱Test our Android app — free beta!Join Beta GroupYou'll receive the install link by email after joining.

Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.


—cases:sc-rti-ib-exempt-scope-2018 [2026/07/18 05:55] (current) – created - external edit 127.0.0.1
Line 1: Line 1:
 +{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(Section 24 RTI Act,Intelligence Bureau RTI,Second Schedule exempt organisations,corruption proviso RTI,human rights violation RTI,Sanjiv Chaturvedi IB case,Adarsh Sharma RTI,CBI RTI exemption)&metatag-description=(Section 24 keeps the Intelligence Bureau outside RTI, but corruption and human-rights information stays open. Verified Delhi HC and CIC rulings, with links.)&metatag-title=(Intelligence Bureau and Section 24 RTI — the verified law)}}
 +
 +====== The Intelligence Bureau and Section 24: what RTI can still reach — the verified law ======
 +
 +<WRAP center round info 95%>
 +**Quick answer.** The RTI Act does **not** apply to the Intelligence Bureau — Section 24(1) excludes the IB and the other intelligence and security organisations listed in the **Second Schedule**. But the exclusion has a statutory gateway: the proviso to Section 24(1) says **"information pertaining to the allegations of corruption and human rights violations shall not be excluded"**. The Delhi High Court has enforced that gateway against the IB itself — //CPIO, Intelligence Bureau v. Sanjiv Chaturvedi// (23 August 2017) — and against the CBI — //CPIO, CBI v. Sanjeev Chaturvedi// (30 January 2024). For human-rights matters, disclosure needs the Central Information Commission's approval and the time limit is **45 days** instead of 30. Everything on this page is verified against the judgment text, with links.
 +</WRAP>
 +
 +<WRAP center round alert 95%>
 +**Editorial correction (10 July 2026).** An earlier version of this page summarised an unnamed "Supreme Court of India" ruling said to be decided on **01 January 2018** with "citation awaited", holding that an IB officer's own personnel records remain accessible despite Section 24. We re-checked Indian Kanoon and the Supreme Court's records and **could not find any such judgment**. That summary has been removed. This page is rebuilt on decisions we fetched and verified against the primary source — the true position on Section 24 is set out below, with links to each judgment.
 +</WRAP>
 +
 +===== What Section 24 actually says =====
 +
 +Section 24(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 provides that nothing in the Act applies to the intelligence and security organisations specified in the **Second Schedule**, or to information furnished by those organisations to the Central Government. The Intelligence Bureau heads that Schedule; the Central Government can add or remove organisations by notification under Section 24(2), and the CBI is also in the Schedule today (its inclusion was the very ground of the 2024 Delhi High Court case below).
 +
 +The exclusion then turns on two provisos ([[https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1767825/|read Section 24 on Indian Kanoon]]):
 +
 +  * **First proviso** — "the information pertaining to the allegations of corruption and human rights violations shall not be excluded under this sub-section".
 +  * **Second proviso** — where the information sought is about allegations of **violation of human rights**, it "shall only be provided after the approval of the Central Information Commission", and the time limit is **forty-five days** from receipt of the request instead of the usual thirty.
 +
 +So the practical question in every IB (or other Second Schedule) case is not "does RTI apply?" — it is "does the information sought pertain to allegations of corruption or human rights violations?"
 +
 +===== The verified authorities =====
 +
 +^ Authority ^ What it decided ^ Where to read it ^
 +| Section 24 + Second Schedule, RTI Act, 2005 | IB and listed organisations excluded; corruption and human-rights information not excluded; CIC approval + 45 days for human-rights matters | [[https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1767825/|Indian Kanoon doc 1767825]] |
 +| //Union of India v. Adarsh Sharma//, W.P.(C) 7453/2011, Delhi HC, decided 9 October 2013 | The exclusion is real: immigration-desk information held by the IB, with no corruption or human-rights angle, cannot be claimed as of right; CIC's disclosure order quashed | [[https://indiankanoon.org/doc/92208095/|Indian Kanoon doc 92208095]] |
 +| //CPIO, Intelligence Bureau v. Sanjiv Chaturvedi//, W.P.(C) 5521/2016, Delhi HC, decided 23 August 2017 | Corruption/human-rights information is outside the exclusion "irrespective of the fact that the information pertains to the exempt intelligence and security organisations or not"; certified copy of the IB report ordered | [[https://indiankanoon.org/doc/73434696/|Indian Kanoon doc 73434696]] |
 +| //Ehtesham Qutubuddin Siddique v. CPIO, Intelligence Bureau//, W.P.(C) 9773/2018, Delhi HC, decided 16 January 2019 | A convict's plea that an IB report would show he was falsely implicated "does pertain to an allegation of human rights violation" — CIC directed to reconsider under the proviso | [[https://indiankanoon.org/doc/82628968/|Indian Kanoon doc 82628968]] |
 +| //CPIO, CBI v. Sanjeev Chaturvedi//, W.P.(C) 2833/2020, Delhi HC, decided 30 January 2024 | CBI's Second Schedule status does not bar disclosure of records of a corruption complaint; CBI's writ against the CIC's disclosure order dismissed | [[https://indiankanoon.org/doc/116341122/|Indian Kanoon doc 116341122]] |
 +| //Vinod Kumar Bindal v. CBI//, File No. CIC/MPERS/A/2017/107414-ADJUNCT, CIC, October 2025 | Publishing a person's name in CBI's "Undesirable Contact Men" list without notice engaged the human-rights proviso; disclosure of the listing criteria and process ordered | [[https://indiankanoon.org/doc/125651866/|Indian Kanoon doc 125651866]] |
 +
 +===== The exclusion is real: Adarsh Sharma (2013) =====
 +
 +In //Union of India v. Adarsh Sharma//, the applicant wanted travel details of a doctor — date of departure from India, destination, flight and passport number — information lying with the IB's immigration set-up. The CIC ordered disclosure; the Delhi High Court quashed that order. Since the information "was neither any information related to the allegations of corruption in Intelligence Bureau nor an information related to the human rights violations", the proviso did not apply and the IB could not be compelled.
 +
 +The court did add a humane note: even where RTI does not apply, the agency "would be well-advised in assisting a citizen, by providing such an information, despite the fact that it cannot be accessed as a matter of right" — and it asked the IB to consider the request administratively. Useful language to quote when you write to an exempt organisation outside the proviso.
 +
 +===== The corruption gateway: Chaturvedi (2017) and CBI v. Chaturvedi (2024) =====
 +
 +Sanjiv Chaturvedi, an Indian Forest Service officer known for exposing irregularities, sought a copy of an IB report concerning him. The IB argued the proviso only covers corruption //within the IB itself//. The Delhi High Court rejected that reading:
 +
 +<WRAP center round box 95%>
 +"If the information sought pertains to allegation of corruption and human right violation, it would be exempt from the exclusion clause, irrespective of the fact that the information pertains to the exempt intelligence and security organisations or not." — //CPIO, Intelligence Bureau v. Sanjiv Chaturvedi//, Delhi HC, 23 August 2017
 +</WRAP>
 +
 +The IB report was held to be "information" under Section 2(f), it pertained to allegations of corruption, and a certified copy was ordered to be given.
 +
 +The same officer won the same point against the CBI. In //CPIO, CBI v. Sanjeev Chaturvedi// (30 January 2024), the CBI argued its Second Schedule entry was a complete bar. The Delhi High Court dismissed the writ petition and upheld the CIC's order: records relating to his [[/cases/bombay-hc-rti-section-24-proviso-2018|corruption complaint]] about procurement irregularities at AIIMS had to be disclosed, because information pertaining to corruption allegations "shall not be excluded" no matter which Schedule the organisation sits in.
 +
 +===== The human-rights gateway: Siddique (2019) and Bindal (2025) =====
 +
 +The proviso's second limb is human rights. In //Ehtesham Qutubuddin Siddique v. CPIO, Intelligence Bureau//, a convict in the 7/11 Mumbai train blasts case sought an IB report he said would show he was falsely implicated. The Delhi High Court held "there can be little doubt that the petitioner's application seeking review report does pertain to an allegation of human rights violation", set aside the CIC's rejection, and sent the matter back for a decision under the proviso — the CIC being the statutory gatekeeper for human-rights disclosures.
 +
 +The Central Information Commission itself applies the gateway. In //Vinod Kumar Bindal v. CBI// (October 2025), a person whose name appeared in the CBI's published "Undesirable Contact Men" list — without notice to him — asked how the list was prepared. The CIC held the publication affected his reputation, dignity and professional standing, engaged the human-rights proviso, and directed the CBI to answer.
 +
 +Remember the mechanics for this limb: **CIC approval is mandatory** and the clock is **45 days**, not 30.
 +
 +===== What about your own service or pension records? =====
 +
 +This is the claim the fabricated ruling made, so here is the honest, verified position:
 +
 +  * **No Supreme Court or High Court decision we could verify gives employees of Second Schedule organisations a general RTI right to their own personnel records.** Section 24 excludes the organisation as a whole; it does not carve out "own records".
 +  * **The proviso is the only RTI route.** If your grievance genuinely pertains to allegations of corruption or of human rights violation — and information commissions test this on the facts, case by case — the proviso can open the door, as the cases above show. A routine request for copies of one's service book, framed with no corruption or human-rights allegation, sits on the //Adarsh Sharma// side of the line.
 +  * **Service law remains fully available.** Exclusion from RTI does not touch your rights under the service and pension rules that govern you, departmental representation channels, or the [[/cases/cat-rti-service-matters-2024|Central Administrative Tribunal]] and the courts. For how the ordinary (non-exempt) service-records law works — your APAR, service book and Section 8(1)(j) — see [[/cases/sc-rti-service-appraisal-own-access-2022|Your own APAR and service book under RTI]].
 +  * **Voluntary assistance can be asked for.** //Adarsh Sharma// expressly encourages exempt agencies to assist citizens administratively even where RTI does not compel them.
 +
 +===== What you can and cannot get from a Second Schedule body =====
 +
 +  * **You cannot get, as of right:** operational, intelligence, administrative or routine records of the IB or other listed organisations — however harmless the record looks — unless your request fits the proviso (//Adarsh Sharma//).
 +  * **You can get:** information pertaining to **allegations of corruption**, on the ordinary 30-day clock (//Chaturvedi// 2017; //CBI v. Chaturvedi// 2024).
 +  * **You can get, with CIC approval, in 45 days:** information pertaining to **allegations of human rights violations** (//Siddique// 2019; //Bindal// 2025).
 +  * **You can always ask** the organisation to assist voluntarily, quoting the //Adarsh Sharma// observation — but a refusal of such a request is not appealable under RTI.
 +
 +For the full list of exempt organisations and how PIOs handle transferred requests, see [[/pio-section-24-exempt-organisations|Section 24: exempt intelligence and security organisations]] and the annotated [[/act/section-24|Section 24 text]].
 +
 +===== How to word an RTI that engages the proviso =====
 +
 +If your matter genuinely involves corruption or human-rights allegations, say so explicitly and connect the records you want to those allegations. Do not bury the allegation — the proviso is your only jurisdiction hook. A skeleton:
 +
 +<code>
 +Under Section 6(1) of the RTI Act, 2005, I request the following
 +information. Although [organisation] is listed in the Second
 +Schedule, this request pertains to allegations of [corruption /
 +violation of human rights], and is therefore not excluded, as per
 +the proviso to Section 24(1) and CPIO, Intelligence Bureau v.
 +Sanjiv Chaturvedi, W.P.(C) 5521/2016, Delhi High Court,
 +23.08.2017.
 +
 +The allegations, in brief: [two or three factual sentences].
 +
 +Records sought:
 +1. [Specific record connected to the allegation]
 +2. [Specific record connected to the allegation]
 +
 +If this is treated as a human-rights matter, I note that under the
 +second proviso to Section 24(1) the information is to be provided
 +within 45 days with the approval of the Central Information
 +Commission. If any part is withheld, please cite the exact
 +provision and inform me of my right to appeal under Section 19.
 +</code>
 +
 +You can generate a clean application with the [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/tools/rti-assistant|RTI Drafter]], test a refusal with the [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/tools/pio-reply-checker|PIO Reply Checker]], and build the appeal with the [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/tools/first-appeal-app.html|First Appeal Builder]]. Fees vary by state — see [[/rti-fees-by-state|state-wise RTI fees]].
 +
 +===== FAQ =====
 +
 +==== Is the Intelligence Bureau completely outside RTI? ====
 +
 +Almost — Section 24(1) excludes it — but not absolutely. Information pertaining to allegations of corruption and human rights violations is expressly not excluded, and the Delhi High Court has ordered disclosure against the IB on exactly that basis (//Chaturvedi//, 2017; //Siddique//, 2019).
 +
 +==== Does the corruption allegation have to be against the IB itself? ====
 +
 +No. The Delhi High Court in //Chaturvedi// (2017) rejected that narrow reading: the proviso applies to information pertaining to corruption or human-rights allegations "irrespective of the fact that the information pertains to the exempt intelligence and security organisations or not".
 +
 +==== Why does my human-rights request take 45 days? ====
 +
 +Because the second proviso to Section 24(1) requires the Central Information Commission's approval before human-rights-related information is released, and substitutes a 45-day limit for Section 7's usual 30 days.
 +
 +==== Can an IB employee get their own service book or pension papers under RTI? ====
 +
 +Not as a matter of course — we could verify no judgment creating such a right, and an earlier version of this page that claimed a 2018 Supreme Court ruling to that effect has been corrected. The employee's remedies lie in the service and pension rules and the tribunals; RTI helps only if the request genuinely pertains to corruption or human-rights allegations under the proviso.
 +
 +==== Is the CBI also exempt? ====
 +
 +Yes, the CBI is in the Second Schedule — but the same proviso applies. In //CPIO, CBI v. Sanjeev Chaturvedi// (Delhi HC, 30 January 2024) the CBI was ordered to disclose records of a corruption complaint despite its exemption, and in //Vinod Kumar Bindal// (CIC, 2025) it was directed to explain its "Undesirable Contact Men" listing on human-rights grounds.
 +
 +===== Sources =====
 +
 +  * Section 24, The Right to Information Act, 2005 — [[https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1767825/|indiankanoon.org/doc/1767825]]
 +  * //Union of India v. Adarsh Sharma//, W.P.(C) 7453/2011, Delhi HC, 9 October 2013 — [[https://indiankanoon.org/doc/92208095/|indiankanoon.org/doc/92208095]]
 +  * //CPIO, Intelligence Bureau v. Sanjiv Chaturvedi//, W.P.(C) 5521/2016, Delhi HC, 23 August 2017 — [[https://indiankanoon.org/doc/73434696/|indiankanoon.org/doc/73434696]]
 +  * //Ehtesham Qutubuddin Siddique v. CPIO, Intelligence Bureau//, W.P.(C) 9773/2018, Delhi HC, 16 January 2019 — [[https://indiankanoon.org/doc/82628968/|indiankanoon.org/doc/82628968]]
 +  * //CPIO, CBI v. Sanjeev Chaturvedi//, W.P.(C) 2833/2020, Delhi HC, 30 January 2024 — [[https://indiankanoon.org/doc/116341122/|indiankanoon.org/doc/116341122]]
 +  * //Vinod Kumar Bindal v. CBI//, CIC/MPERS/A/2017/107414-ADJUNCT, CIC, October 2025 — [[https://indiankanoon.org/doc/125651866/|indiankanoon.org/doc/125651866]]
 +
 +===== Similar cases in the corpus =====
 +
 +//These rulings have the closest editorial ratio to this topic — useful starting points if you are researching the same point of law.//
 +
 +  * [[/cases/cic-rti-defence-pensions-ceremonial-2020|Defence pension sanction records — CIC]] (CIC 2020)
 +  * [[/cases/sc-rti-service-appraisal-own-access-2022|Own APAR and service-book access]] (SC 2022)
 +  * [[/cases/delhi-hc-rti-armed-forces-2017|Armed-forces service records — Delhi HC]] (HC-DEL 2017)
 +  * [[/cases/sc-rti-personal-service-record-own-2015|Public servant's own service record — SC]] (SC 2015)
 +  * [[/cases/kerala-hc-rti-pension-records-2018|Pension records — Kerala HC]] (HC-KER 2018)
 +
 +===== Related =====
 +
 +  * [[/pio-section-24-exempt-organisations|Section 24: exempt intelligence and security organisations — PIO guide]]
 +  * [[/act/section-24|Section 24 — annotated text]]
 +  * [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=24|All RTI cases turning on §24]]
 +  * [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/cases/search?section=8|All RTI cases turning on §8]]
 +  * [[:cases:search|Full case-law search]]
 +  * [[:cases|Case-Law Database — overview]]
 +  * [[:pio-rti-reply-guide|PIO RTI Reply Guide]]
 +  * [[:act|The RTI Act, 2005 — annotated]]
 +
 +<WRAP center round alert 95%>
 +**Editorial summary, not a certified report.** Verify every citation against the full reported decision before using it in a PIO order, first-appeal or any filing. RTI Wiki is not a legal service. Content licence: CC-BY 4.0 · Big Helpers (bighelpers.in).
 +</WRAP>
 +
 +
 +
 +//Editorial summary · reviewed by Dr. Shrawan Kumar Pathak · last reviewed 10 July 2026.//
 +
 +{{tag>rti case-law section-24 intelligence-bureau exempt-organisations delhi-high-court cic}}