On Sunday, September 27, 2026, the Tamil Nadu government announced the withdrawal of a Government Order that had sought to place the Public (Law and Order) Department outside the scope of the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005. The decision came after a wave of criticism from opposition parties, civil‑society groups and activists, who argued that the move undermined transparency in a department dealing with sensitive security matters.
Background of the order
The order in question was issued on September 21, 2026 by the Human Resources Management Department and was formally published in the Government Gazette. Citing Section 24(4) of the RTI Act, the order classified the Public (Law and Order) Department as an “Intelligence and Security Organisation” and therefore exempted it from the Act’s disclosure requirements.
According to the text of the order, the exemption would have covered a wide array of subjects, including communal and caste clashes, appointments of Commissions of Inquiry on law‑and‑order matters, and follow‑up actions on their recommendations. It also listed matters related to COFEPOSA and NSA detentions, representations by detainees, habeas corpus petitions filed in the High Court and Supreme Court, and the conduct of monthly and special law‑and‑order review meetings as directed by the Chief Secretary.
Further, the order sought to keep out of public scrutiny any inquiry reports concerning police firing, deaths in police custody, alleged police torture, and deaths of remand prisoners. It also covered references to the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) on issues handled by the law‑and‑order wing, monthly reports on law‑and‑order and communal incidents submitted to the Government of India, and replies to questions raised in the Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha on related matters. Additional exclusions involved agitations by students, agricultural labourers and political parties, requests for withdrawal of cases registered on political or communal grounds, and matters pertaining to the sanction of prosecution for defamatory articles, news items and speeches.
Political and civil‑society reaction
The exemption order triggered immediate and widespread condemnation. AMMK founder T.T.V. Dhinakaran publicly opposed the order on September 27, accusing the Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam‑led government of abandoning its earlier pledge of transparency. Dhinakaran demanded an explanation from Chief Minister C. Joseph Vijay and called for the revocation of the exemption.
Environmental activist G. Sundarrajan of Poovulagin Nanbargal described the timing of the order as “deeply concerning.” He linked the move to a prior controversy surrounding a law‑and‑order meeting chaired by Chief Secretary M. Sai Kumar, where the meeting’s minutes had become public and attracted strong opposition from Left parties. Following that episode, the state had withdrawn a contentious circular on collegiate education that had been issued on the basis of the meeting’s directions.
Jayaram Venkatesan, convener of the Arappor Iyakkam movement, condemned the order in equally strong terms, insisting that “the entire Law and Order section of the Public Department could not be kept outside the purview of the RTI Act.” His statement underscored a broader civil‑society consensus that the exemption threatened accountability in matters that directly affect public safety and civil liberties.
Government response and withdrawal
Minister for Energy Resources and Law C.T.R. Nirmal Kumar initially defended the order in a press briefing in Madurai earlier on the same day. He argued that only certain provisions—specifically those dealing with information on communal clashes—should remain within the ambit of the RTI Act because of the sensitivity of the data involved.
Later that day, however, the minister announced on the social media platform X that the Government Order had been withdrawn. In his post, Nirmal Kumar confirmed that the decision to exempt the department had been reversed, though he did not provide a detailed rationale for the change beyond acknowledging the “strong criticism from various civil society organisations.”
The withdrawal effectively restores the Public (Law and Order) Department to the full ambit of the RTI Act, meaning that future requests for information on the subjects listed in the September 21 order will once again be subject to the standard disclosure procedures prescribed by the Act.
Legal scholars note that Section 24(4) of the RTI Act allows a central or state government to declare a particular body an intelligence or security organization, thereby exempting it from the Act. However, such declarations have historically been scrutinized for over‑broad application, especially when they encompass departments that perform routine administrative functions alongside security duties.
The episode highlights the delicate balance that state governments must strike between safeguarding sensitive security information and upholding the constitutional right to information. It also underscores the role of political opposition and activist groups in monitoring governmental use of exemptions that could potentially curtail public oversight.
As of the latest reports, the Tamil Nadu government has not indicated any intention to issue a revised order or to re‑examine other possible exemptions. Observers will be watching to see whether the withdrawal marks a lasting shift toward greater transparency or whether similar attempts may arise in the future under different guises.
Be First to Comment