R ARIVANANTHAM
CHENNAI, SEPT 28
A controversial attempt to put Tamil Nadu’s Public (Law and Order) Department beyond the ordinary reach of the Right to Information Act has been rolled back. The C Joseph Vijay-led TVK government on Sunday revoked its September 21 Government Order that had classified the department as an “Intelligence and Security Organisation” under Section 24(4) of the RTI Act, following criticism from alliance partners, Opposition leaders and transparency advocates.
The Human Resources Management (R) Department issued a fresh order withdrawing GO Ms No.57 dated September 21, 2026, bringing the episode to a swift close just days after the exemption was notified.
- September 21 order invoking Section 24(4) withdrawn within days amid criticism
- Public access to records on custodial deaths, police firing and communal clashes restored
- Congress, VCK and Opposition voices had questioned the transparency move
- Government had classified Law & Order wing as an “Intelligence and Security Organisation”
- Rollback follows demands for greater transparency and accountability
The revocation order stated: “GO Ms.No.57 of Human Resources Management (R) Department dated 21st September, 2026, relating to exemption of the Public (Law and Order) Department under sub-section (4) of Section 24 of the RTI Act, 2005, stands revoked.”
What triggered the controversy?
The original notification, issued under Section 24(4) of the RTI Act, 2005, specified the Public (Law and Order) Department as an “Intelligence and Security Organisation” established by the Tamil Nadu Government, thereby bringing it within the exemption framework under Section 24.
The significance lay in the wide range of subjects handled by the department. Its responsibilities include matters relating to communal and caste clashes, political agitations, preventive detention, police firing, custodial deaths, alleged police torture and deaths of remand prisoners, besides references from the National Human Rights Commission.
It also deals with representations by detainees and habeas corpus petitions, reports on law-and-order and communal incidents, agitations involving students and agricultural labourers, and requests for withdrawal of cases registered on political grounds.
The department also handles proposals for sanction of prosecution concerning defamatory articles, news reports and speeches, bringing the transparency question directly into the realm of journalism and freedom of expression.
Allies join the transparency push
The proposed exemption triggered criticism from parties supporting the TVK government, besides Opposition voices.
VCK president and MP Thol Thirumavalavan termed the notification “highly shocking”, warning that it would “pave the way for suppressing human rights” and calling for its immediate withdrawal.
Congress MP Karti Chidambaram said the move would set a “bad precedent”, arguing that the scope of the RTI Act should be expanded rather than restricted. He said that had the order remained in force, access to records concerning police torture, custodial deaths, police firing, communal clashes and security-related detentions could have been curtailed. He subsequently welcomed the revocation.
The criticism was not confined to alliance partners. DMK MP Kanimozhi accused the government of attempting to restrict citizens from questioning it despite its promise of a “transparent government”. Her criticism linked the move to the state’s law-and-order record, a claim that remains her political assessment.
AMMK founder T T V Dhinakaran also questioned how a government reluctant to answer public questions could provide transparent administration. He specifically flagged information relating to social and caste clashes, custodial deaths, police firing and cases registered against students and farmers on political grounds.
AIADMK leader D Jayakumar went further, describing the move in sharply critical terms and arguing that RTI is an instrument through which citizens can monitor government functioning.
Why Section 24 matters
Section 24 of the RTI Act provides exemptions for specified intelligence and security organisations. However, the exemption is not absolute: the statutory framework contains exceptions relating to information concerning allegations of corruption and human-rights violations, subject to the conditions prescribed by the Act.
That legal backdrop made the attempt to classify the entire Public (Law and Order) Department particularly contentious because its mandate extends well beyond narrowly defined intelligence functions.
Government faces the transparency test
The initial order was also defended by School Education Minister A Rajmohan, who said that freedom of expression would not be affected but that its “Lakshman Rekha” should be respected.
The government’s subsequent withdrawal means that the proposed blanket departmental exemption will no longer operate.
For citizens, journalists, activists and researchers, the episode has underlined a fundamental question about the RTI framework: how far can administrative confidentiality extend when a department’s records concern policing, custodial deaths, public protests, communal and caste tensions and the exercise of State power?
The immediate answer from Fort St George has come through the revocation of the September 21 order.
But the larger transparency debate—over the appropriate boundaries between legitimate security concerns and citizens’ right to know—is unlikely to end with the withdrawal of one Government Order.
