Published Oct 28, 2026 | 11:02 AM ⚊ Updated Oct 28, 2026 | 11:02 AM
Chennithala said information relating to corruption cases and human rights violations would not be concealed under the exemption.
Synopsis: The Keralam government has exempted the T1 and T2 sections of the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau from the Right to Information Act through a notification on 22 October. The RTI Kerala Federation has challenged the decision in the High Court. Home Minister Ramesh Chennithala said information on corruption cases and human rights violations would not be concealed and could be disclosed after investigations were completed.
The Keralam government’s decision to exempt two confidential sections of the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau (VACB) from the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005, has come under legal challenge, with the RTI Kerala Federation approaching the High Court against the move.
The government added the T1 and T2 sections of the VACB to the list of intelligence and security organisations exempted from the Act through a notification published in the Kerala Gazette on 22 October. The notification was issued under Section 24(4) of the Act, which empowers State governments to exempt specified organisations, subject to statutory conditions.
The two sections have been added to a list of eight organisations that were exempted under a government order issued on 7 February 2006.
The exemption has raised questions about whether excluding entire sections of the vigilance directorate could restrict public access to government records beyond those directly related to ongoing investigations. The High Court will examine the legality of the notification and its implications for citizens’ statutory right to information.
Also Read: Keralam’s water hyacinth problem: Can an invasive weed become a source of livelihood?
The T1 and T2 sections handle sensitive administrative and investigative work within the vigilance directorate.
T1 maintains annual confidential reports of ministerial, executive and legal personnel, along with secured personal files and classified documents. It also handles confidential verifications and sensitive, high-level vigilance investigations.
T2 processes weekly diaries submitted by vigilance officers, gathers and analyses intelligence inputs, including reports from confidential sources, and manages public complaints received through dedicated secure telephone hotlines. It also coordinates surprise inspections.
The government’s justification for exempting the sections is that disclosure of records during ongoing investigations could compromise evidence collection or alert those under scrutiny. Information supplied by informants and other sensitive investigative details, officials argue, must remain confidential while inquiries are in progress.
The dispute centres on whether protecting such information requires exempting the two sections from the RTI Act as a whole, and how the exemption will affect access to other records held by them.
Also Read: A case of rotten apples? Vigilance to probe unused iPhones worth Rs 7.16 crore in Keralam hospitals
Defending the decision in the Assembly on Tuesday, Home Minister Ramesh Chennithala said the government had no intention of diluting the RTI Act. He said the exemption was intended to protect the integrity of vigilance investigations without undermining transparency.
Responding to a question from CPI MLA KK Valsaraj, Chennithala said information relating to corruption cases and human rights violations would not be concealed under the exemption. Such information could be disclosed after investigations were completed, he said, adding that disclosure during an ongoing probe could benefit the accused and hamper evidence collection.
The Minister also said the decision was based on a recommendation made by the Vigilance Director during the previous government’s tenure. The recommendation cited the risk that disclosure of records relating to ongoing investigations could prejudice the probes.
The government’s assurance that the exemption would apply only to a limited category of highly confidential matters does not resolve the broader question of access to records held by the two sections. The scope of the exemption and its application to information beyond active investigations remain central to the challenge before the High Court.
(Edited by Dese Gowda)
