Current Affairs Topics Archive
International Relations Economics Polity & Governance Environment & Ecology Science & Technology Internal Security Geography Social Issues Art & Culture Modern History

Himachal Pradesh excludes ACB, vigilance bureau from RTI purview

March 14, 2026 5 min read Polity & Governance GS Paper 2 (Polity Governance Transparency Accountability)
On This Page ▼

What Happened

  • The Governor of Himachal Pradesh issued a notification excluding the State Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau (SV&ACB) from the ambit of the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005, through an order issued by Chief Secretary Sanjay Gupta.
  • The exemption was granted under Section 24(4) of the RTI Act, which empowers state governments to exempt intelligence and security organisations by notification in the Official Gazette.
  • The government's stated rationale: investigation processes involve sensitive information, and public disclosure through RTI could compromise ongoing corruption probes.
  • Citizens will no longer be able to directly obtain information from the ACB through RTI applications; however, information related to allegations of corruption and human rights violations can still be sought (as mandated by the RTI Act's proviso to Section 24).
  • Leader of Opposition Jairam Thakur and BJP leaders slammed the move as designed to shield the government from scrutiny and weaponise the ACB against political opponents.
  • The order draws scrutiny because the ACB is the very body tasked with investigating corruption — exempting it from transparency requirements is seen as a structural contradiction.

Static Topic Bridges

The Right to Information Act, 2005 — Framework and Exemptions

The Right to Information Act, 2005, operationalises the constitutional right to information implicit in Article 19(1)(a) (freedom of speech and expression) and Article 21 (right to life and dignity). It grants every citizen the right to access information held by public authorities, subject to specific exemptions.

  • Section 8 of the RTI Act lists categories of information that can be withheld: information affecting sovereignty, cabinet notes, fiduciary information, commercial confidences, information received in confidence from foreign governments, etc.
  • Section 24(1) exempts intelligence and security organisations listed in the Second Schedule (central list) from the RTI Act entirely, except for information on corruption and human rights violations.
  • Section 24(4) extends a parallel exemption power to state governments for state-level intelligence and security organisations, subject to the same proviso: information on corruption and human rights violations cannot be withheld.
  • Central organisations exempted under the Second Schedule include the IB, RAW, NTRO, CBI, ED, DRDO, and 27 others.
  • The Chief Information Commission (CIC) at the centre and State Information Commissions (SICs) at the state level adjudicate RTI disputes.

Connection to this news: Himachal Pradesh used Section 24(4) to exempt its ACB and Vigilance Bureau — the same legal mechanism used for intelligence agencies. Critics argue that applying a national security exemption to an anti-corruption body stretches the statutory intent of Section 24, which was designed for agencies handling sensitive intelligence, not domestic law enforcement.

Anti-Corruption Bureaus and State Vigilance Machinery

State-level Anti-Corruption Bureaus (ACBs) and Vigilance Bureaus are law enforcement agencies empowered to investigate allegations of bribery, corruption, and abuse of office by public servants, including politicians. They operate under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (as amended in 2018).

  • The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, defines offences of criminal misconduct, acceptance of illegal gratification, and possession of disproportionate assets.
  • The 2018 amendment criminalised bribe-giving (not just receiving), strengthened provisions on abettors, and introduced a prosecution approval requirement for investigating serving public servants above a certain rank.
  • ACBs are often accused of being used selectively — pursuing opposition politicians while shielding those in power — a concern that motivates demands for their independence and transparency.
  • The Supreme Court, in Vineet Narain v. Union of India (1998), emphasised the principle of the "rule of law" requiring equal enforcement, and stressed that investigative agencies must be insulated from executive interference.

Connection to this news: The exemption of the ACB from RTI scrutiny removes one of the few external accountability mechanisms available to citizens and journalists to track which cases are being investigated, how resources are allocated, and whether the bureau is functioning independently.

RTI and Accountability — Judicial Interpretations

The Supreme Court and High Courts have consistently held that transparency is a constitutional value and that RTI exemptions must be interpreted narrowly. The right to information has been held to be a component of the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a).

  • In CBSE v. Aditya Bandopadhyay (2011), the Supreme Court held that RTI should be used to serve citizens, not to harass public authorities, but also that exemptions are exceptions and should not be used to swallow the rule.
  • State Information Commissions can impose penalties on Public Information Officers who wrongly deny information (₹250/day, up to ₹25,000 maximum under Section 20).
  • The Supreme Court has held that RTI applications cannot be used for fishing expeditions, but also that transparency in public institutions is a democratic necessity.
  • Corruption-related information from exempted agencies: even organisations listed in the Second Schedule must disclose information about corruption and human rights violations — this is a mandatory exception to the exemption.

Connection to this news: Even with the HP notification excluding the ACB from RTI, citizens retain the statutory right to seek information on corruption allegations against the bureau itself. The practical enforceability of this residual right before the State Information Commission will be the key test of the notification's impact.

Key Facts & Data

  • Exempting authority: Governor of HP, through Chief Secretary Sanjay Gupta's notification
  • Legal basis: Section 24(4) of the RTI Act, 2005
  • Bodies exempted: State Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau (SV&ACB)
  • Mandatory exception retained: information on corruption allegations and human rights violations must still be disclosed
  • Central RTI exemption list: 27 intelligence and security organisations in the Second Schedule
  • RTI Act passed: 2005 (came into force June 15, 2005)
  • Relevant SC case: Vineet Narain v. Union of India (1998) — investigative agencies must function independently
  • Key penalty under RTI Act: Section 20 — ₹250/day fine on PIOs for wrongful denial, up to ₹25,000