Chennai: The Tamil Nadu government on Sunday withdrew its order exempting the Public (Law and Order) Department from the ambit of the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005, hours after the move triggered criticism from opposition parties, allies and transparency advocates.
The government revoked Government Order Ms No. 57 issued by the Human Resources Management (R) Department on September 21, 2026. The order had invoked Section 24(4) of the RTI Act to classify the Public (Law and Order) Department as an Intelligence and Security Organisation, thereby placing it under the exemption framework provided by the law.
The rollback means the department will no longer have the specific exemption introduced through the September 21 government order. The original notification had raised concerns because the Public (Law and Order) Department handles a wide range of matters involving policing, public order, protests and reports concerning police action.
Government revokes September 21 order
The state government confirmed the withdrawal in a brief order, stating that Government Order Ms No. 57 of the Human Resources Management (R) Department dated September 21, 2026, relating to the exemption of the Public (Law and Order) Department under sub-section (4) of Section 24 of the RTI Act, 2005, “stands revoked”.
The original order had been notified in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette. Under Section 24(4), a state government can specify an intelligence or security organisation established by it for exemption from the RTI Act.
The decision attracted attention because the department’s responsibilities extend beyond intelligence-related matters. Its functions include dealing with law-and-order reviews, communal and caste clashes, political agitations and certain preventive detention matters.
What information was covered by the original order?
The Public (Law and Order) Department deals with several subjects that can involve questions of public accountability.
These include inquiry reports into police firing, deaths in police custody, allegations of police torture and deaths of remand prisoners. The department also handles references concerning law-and-order matters from the National Human Rights Commission.
Other responsibilities include matters relating to communal and caste clashes, political agitations, student and agricultural labourers’ protests, and requests for withdrawal of cases registered in connection with political grounds or such clashes and agitations.
The department also handles preventive detention matters under laws including the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act and the National Security Act. Its responsibilities include representations from detainees and habeas corpus petitions before the Madras High Court and the Supreme Court.
The original exemption therefore had implications for the availability of information concerning several law-and-order and police-related matters through RTI.
Minister had said move could be reconsidered
TVK Minister CTR Nirmal Kumar had defended the original decision, saying only certain portions of the Law and Order Department’s work were intended to be kept outside the RTI framework.
He said information relating to community clashes was among the matters for which RTI requests had frequently been made. According to his explanation, the Law and Order Department has around 20 sections and only some were intended to come under the exemption.
Nirmal Kumar had also said that if members of the public were uncomfortable with the decision, the matter could be taken up with Chief Minister C Joseph Vijay for further action.
The subsequent revocation came on September 27, the same day the order drew wider public and political attention.
Opposition parties criticised the exemption
The original notification faced criticism from political parties and other groups.
CPI(M) MP Su Venkatesan urged the government to withdraw the order, arguing that the move would restrict access to information relating to law-and-order matters. The Indian Express also reported criticism from VCK president and MP Thol Thirumavalavan, whose party supports the government.
Congress MP Karti Chidambaram also criticised the decision. He said the RTI Act was intended to strengthen democratic accountability and argued that information relating to police firing, custodial deaths, torture, communal and caste clashes and politically sensitive cases should remain accessible through the transparency framework.
Transparency advocates also questioned the classification of the entire Public (Law and Order) wing within the intelligence and security exemption. The Indian Express reported that Arappor Iyakkam criticised the move and called for its withdrawal.
Government had defended freedom of expression
While defending the original order, TVK Minister Raj Mohan said the move would not affect freedom of expression. He also said information required by the media would continue to be provided by the government.
The minister stressed that freedom of expression also comes with limits and alleged that information should not be deliberately distorted for political benefit. His comments came amid the criticism surrounding the RTI exemption.
However, the government has now revoked the specific September 21 order, removing the exemption that had been created for the Public (Law and Order) Department under Section 24(4).
What the rollback means
The withdrawal restores the position that existed before the September 21 notification with regard to this particular exemption. Requests for information concerning the Public (Law and Order) Department will no longer face the additional blanket exemption introduced by that order.
However, the RTI Act itself contains exemptions and procedural safeguards. Section 24 provides a framework for specified intelligence and security organisations, while the law also contains provisions concerning information related to allegations of corruption and human-rights violations.
The latest decision marks a rapid reversal of the September 21 notification after political and public criticism. The government has not publicly stated that the original order was withdrawn because of any particular individual’s criticism; it has simply issued the revocation of the notification.
The episode has brought renewed attention to the balance between confidentiality in sensitive law-and-order matters and citizens’ access to information concerning the functioning of public authorities.