The Kerala High Court on Wednesday, 28 October 2026, sought clarification from the state government on whether vigilance inquiries against public officials fall within the scope of an exemption granted to two sections of the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau (VACB) under the Right to Information (RTI) Act. The court's intervention follows a public interest litigation challenging a government notification issued on 22 October that brought the VACB's T1 and T2 sections under the exemption.

What the Court Directed

A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Soumen Sen and Justice V.M. Syam Kumar directed the state government to file an affidavit detailing the categories of information handled by the T1 and T2 sections. The bench observed that the two units deal with vigilance inquiries, intelligence inputs, search reports, and other material relating to vigilance proceedings. While acknowledging that some of this information could be sensitive, the court specifically sought clarity on whether inquiries against public officials fall within the sections' remit. The matter is scheduled to be taken up again after three weeks.

The Petitioner's Challenge

The petitioner contends that the VACB is primarily a criminal investigation agency that probes corruption offences involving public servants and therefore cannot be classified as an intelligence or security organisation merely through an administrative notification. The plea points out that the VACB was not among the eight organisations originally exempted under a government order dated 7 February 2006. The petitioner further submitted that a similar notification had been withdrawn by the state government in 2016 after it was challenged before the High Court — a precedent the bench is likely to weigh.

On-Ground Impact of the Notification

According to the petitioner, VACB information officers have already begun rejecting RTI requests concerning vigilance inquiries, preliminary verifications, closure reports, and sanctions for prosecution, citing the 22 October notification. The plea argues that a blanket exemption for the two sections could effectively shield the state's anti-corruption machinery from public scrutiny, even though the RTI Act already provides targeted exemptions to protect material whose disclosure could impede investigations or endanger individuals.

Key Legal Arguments

The petitioner cited a recent Supreme Court ruling in Special Police Establishment vs Kamta Prasad Mishra and Others, arguing that an agency that investigates corruption cannot automatically be treated as an intelligence and security organisation under Section 24(4) of the RTI Act. Section 24(4) permits state governments to exempt specified intelligence and security organisations through notifications published in the Official Gazette. The plea seeks the quashing of the 22 October notification and the continued application of the RTI Act to the two sections for information not otherwise exempt under law. The High Court has not yet ruled on the validity of the notification.

What Happens Next

The state government now has approximately three weeks to file its affidavit before the Division Bench reconvenes. The outcome could set a significant precedent on the boundaries of RTI exemptions for anti-corruption bodies across India, particularly given the Supreme Court ruling the petitioner has invoked.