Lokayukta Anti-Corruption Police Cannot Escape RTI

On 15 June 2026 the Supreme Court reopened State anti-corruption police records to the public. It ruled that a Lokayukta's Special Police wing is not an “intelligence and security organisation”, so a State cannot use Section 24 of the RTI Act to shield it behind a blanket exemption. This means citizens can now seek its records like any other public authority.

The ruling came in Special Police Establishment v. Kamta Prasad Mishra & Ors., 2026 INSC 644 (also reported as 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 629), decided by a bench of Justices J.K. Maheshwari and Atul S. Chandurkar. The Court struck down the Madhya Pradesh notification of 25 August 2011 in so far as it exempted the Lokayukta's Special Police Establishment, and upheld the High Court order directing disclosure.

Quick “can I RTI this body?” test. Ask two questions. First, is the body really an intelligence or security organisation by its core function, or does it mainly investigate corruption and crime? If it mainly investigates corruption, it is not exempt. Second, does your request relate to corruption or human rights? If yes, the information cannot be withheld under Section 24 even from a body that is genuinely exempt.

Section 24 of the RTI Act 2005 carves out certain organisations from the Act. It has two mirror parts.

• Section 24(1) exempts the central intelligence and security organisations listed in the Second Schedule of the Act. A proviso says information about allegations of corruption and human rights violations is not excluded. Human rights information is released only with the approval of the Central Information Commission, within 45 days.
• Section 24(4) is the State version. It lets a State Government exempt its own intelligence and security organisations by notification in the Official Gazette. The same proviso applies: corruption and human rights information stays open, with State Information Commission approval and a 45-day timeline for human rights matters.

The key word in both parts is “intelligence and security”. A body has to actually be an intelligence or security organisation to be exempted. A State cannot simply notify any agency it likes.

In Special Police Establishment v. Kamta Prasad Mishra & Ors., 2026 INSC 644, the applicant had sought information about the sanction granted to prosecute a public servant under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The Madhya Pradesh Special Police Establishment, the police wing that helps the Lokayukta investigate corruption under the MP Special Police Establishment Act, 1947, refused, relying on the State notification of 25 August 2011 that claimed to exempt it under Section 24(4).

The Supreme Court rejected that defence. It held that a body conferred jurisdiction only to investigate corruption offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and related provisions cannot be treated as an “intelligence and security organisation” for the purposes of Section 24(4). Its function is investigating corruption, not intelligence or security. The Court therefore struck down the notification in so far as it exempted this wing, dismissed the appeal, and upheld the High Court direction to disclose the information.

The ruling confirms a simple, function-based test. What matters is not the name of the body or the label a State attaches to it, but what the body actually does. If its core mandate is investigating corruption and crime, it is not an intelligence and security organisation, whatever a notification says. This test protects citizens across States, because most Lokayukta and anti-corruption police wings share the same anti-corruption mandate.

There is a second, independent protection. Even if a body were a genuine intelligence and security organisation, the proviso to Section 24 says records about allegations of corruption and human rights violations still cannot be withheld. In this case the applicant wanted corruption-related records, so disclosure would have followed on that ground alone. Keep this backstop in mind: for corruption information, Section 24 is almost never a valid ground for refusal.

1. Identify the public authority. This is the Lokayukta office or its Special Police Establishment in your State. Find the Public Information Officer (PIO) and the first appellate authority on its website or by a phone enquiry.
2. Write a clear application. Ask for specific records, such as a copy of a sanction order, a status of a complaint, an inquiry report, or file notings. Use plain language and mention the exact period. The RTI draft helper can shape your request.
3. Pay the fee. Attach the fee your State prescribes, usually Rs 10, by the accepted mode such as a postal order, court fee stamp, or online payment.
4. File and keep proof. Submit by post, in person, or online where available. Keep the receipt or dispatch proof and note the date. Use the timeline calculator to track the 30-day deadline.
5. If they wrongly claim Section 24 exemption, do not accept it at face value. Check whether the body is genuinely an intelligence or security organisation and whether your request concerns corruption or human rights.
6. File a first appeal within 30 days of the refusal or the lapse of the 30-day reply period, to the first appellate authority. State that the body only investigates corruption and is not an intelligence and security organisation, and cite 2026 INSC 644. The first appeal helper drafts this for you.
7. File a second appeal to the State Information Commission within 90 days if the first appeal fails. Attach your application, the reply, and your first appeal, and rely on the 2026 ruling.

Before you challenge a refusal, run it through the PIO reply checker to see whether the Section 24 ground even holds.

• A copy of your RTI application with the date of filing.
• Proof of fee payment.
• Proof of dispatch or the acknowledgement receipt.
• Any reply or refusal from the PIO, including the exact wording of the Section 24 claim.
• Copies of your first appeal and any order passed on it.

• Accepting the Section 24 label. A refusal that just cites Section 24 is not enough. The body must actually be an intelligence and security organisation.
• Forgetting the corruption backstop. If your request is about corruption, Section 24 cannot shield the records at all.
• Missing appeal deadlines. The first appeal window is 30 days and the second appeal window is 90 days. Track them.
• Asking vague questions. Broad or opinion-seeking questions are easy to reject. Ask for specific, identifiable records.
• Not citing the ruling. In your appeals, name 2026 INSC 644 so the appellate authority sees the settled position.

Yes. After the 2026 Supreme Court ruling, such a wing is treated as a normal public authority and cannot claim a blanket Section 24 exemption. File your application to its Public Information Officer.

It held that the Madhya Pradesh Special Police Establishment, the Lokayukta's anti-corruption police wing, is not an intelligence and security organisation. It struck down the 25 August 2011 notification in so far as it exempted the wing and ordered disclosure.

The functional test it lays down applies generally. Most States have similar Lokayukta or anti-corruption police wings with the same corruption-investigation mandate, so the same reasoning applies. Cite the ruling in your appeal.

Section 24(1) exempts central intelligence and security organisations in the Second Schedule. Section 24(4) lets a State exempt its own intelligence and security organisations by notification. Both carry the same corruption and human rights proviso.

No. Both provisos say information about allegations of corruption is not excluded. Even a genuinely exempt body must disclose corruption-related records.

Escalate. File a first appeal within 30 days, then a second appeal to the State Information Commission within 90 days. The Commission can order disclosure and impose a penalty on the PIO.

Yes. Human rights information from an exempt body is released only after the State Information Commission approves it, and it must be provided within 45 days of the request.

The normal RTI timeline applies, usually 30 days from receipt of your application. Track it with the timeline calculator so you know when to appeal.

• Special Police Establishment v. Kamta Prasad Mishra & Ors., 2026 INSC 644, also reported as 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 629, Supreme Court of India, 15 June 2026.
• Section 24, Right to Information Act, 2005, including subsections (1) and (4) and their provisos on corruption and human rights violations.
• Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
• Madhya Pradesh Special Police Establishment Act, 1947.

• RTI Act 2005
• The RTI Playbook
• AI RTI Draft Helper
• First Appeal Helper
• RTI Timeline Calculator