Tamil Nadu: Government Reverses RTI Exemption for Law and Order Department

The Tamil Nadu government led by Chief Minister C. Joseph Vijay has revoked an order that had exempted the Public (Law and Order) Department from the provisions of the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005. The government withdrew the order on September 27, 2026, after the decision faced criticism from political parties, including allies of the ruling establishment, as well as transparency and civil-rights advocates.

The original order, Government Order (GO) Ms. No. 57, was issued by the Human Resources Management (R) Department on September 21, 2026. It invoked Section 24(4) of the RTI Act, under which state governments can exempt certain intelligence and security organisations from the Act. The notification classified the Public (Law and Order) Department as an “Intelligence and Security Organisation” established by the Tamil Nadu government.

Why the RTI exemption attracted attention

The decision attracted political and public attention because the Public (Law and Order) Department handles matters that extend beyond conventional intelligence and security functions. According to reports, its responsibilities include records concerning police conduct, custodial deaths, allegations of police torture, police firing and human-rights-related matters. The department also deals with communal and caste clashes, political protests and preventive detention.

The department’s work also includes handling references involving the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC), representations by people held under preventive-detention laws and certain matters connected with law-and-order incidents. Its responsibilities can therefore involve records that are of public interest and are relevant to questions about police accountability and government administration.

Government withdraws the order

Following the criticism, the Tamil Nadu government issued a fresh order revoking the September 21 notification. The government stated that GO Ms. No. 57 stands revoked, effectively reversing the exemption that had been granted to the Public (Law and Order) Department.

The reversal came only a few days after the original notification was issued. Reports said the decision had faced criticism from political allies, opposition voices and transparency activists, increasing pressure on the government to reconsider the move.

Political and public criticism

The original exemption drew criticism from sections of the political establishment as well as civil-society groups. CPI(M) MP Su Venkatesan criticised the decision, while VCK president and MP Thol Thirumavalavan, whose party supports the government, also called for the order to be withdrawn. Transparency and anti-corruption activists questioned why the entire Law and Order wing should be treated as an intelligence and security organisation for RTI purposes.

Critics argued that limiting access to information relating to police action, human-rights complaints and political protests could make public scrutiny of government and policing more difficult. These are the concerns raised by critics and should be distinguished from the government’s formal legal basis for issuing the original notification.

What Section 24 of the RTI Act provides

The dispute centres partly on Section 24 of the Right to Information Act. The provision allows specified intelligence and security organisations to be excluded from the normal application of the RTI Act. However, the exemption is not absolute: the RTI framework contains provisions concerning information relating to allegations of corruption and human-rights violations.

This distinction is important because the Law and Order Department deals with a wide range of administrative and policing matters. The debate therefore focused not only on whether an exemption could legally be issued, but also on the scope of information that could potentially become inaccessible if the exemption remained in force.

Records handled by the Law and Order Department

The department handles several areas connected to the state’s law-and-order administration. These include preventive detention under laws such as the National Security Act (NSA) and the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act (COFEPOSA).

Its responsibilities also include matters concerning custodial deaths, police firing, allegations of police torture, communal and caste-related clashes and political agitations. The department can also deal with representations from detainees and matters connected with habeas corpus proceedings before the courts.

Because of these responsibilities, access to relevant government records can be significant for journalists, citizens, lawyers, human-rights organisations and researchers seeking information about the functioning of public authorities.

Transparency debate

The controversy has also raised a broader discussion about transparency and accountability in government. Supporters of greater RTI access argue that public access to government records can help citizens understand how administrative decisions are made and how public authorities exercise their powers.

At the same time, the RTI Act recognises that certain information involving national security, intelligence and sensitive operations may require protection. The central issue in this case was therefore the classification of the Public (Law and Order) Department and the extent to which that classification should affect access to its records.

The Tamil Nadu government’s decision to revoke the notification means that the specific exemption granted through GO Ms. No. 57 of September 21, 2026, will no longer remain in force.

What happens next

The withdrawal of the order ends the immediate controversy over the September 21 notification, but the wider debate over RTI access, police accountability and transparency in Tamil Nadu may continue.

The episode has highlighted the importance of balancing legitimate security considerations with the public’s interest in accessing information about government administration. It has also brought attention to the legal limits and exceptions contained within the RTI Act, 2005.

For now, the key development is that the Tamil Nadu government has revoked the RTI exemption for the Public (Law and Order) Department after criticism from political allies, opposition voices and transparency advocates.

The development is likely to remain part of the political and governance debate in Tamil Nadu as parties and civil-society groups continue to discuss transparency, accountability, citizens’ right to information and access to records concerning law-and-order administration.