For a few days, the Right to Information (RTI) Act in Tamil Nadu appeared to have been pushed into a blind spot. On September 21, the state government issued an order, bringing the Public (Law and Order) department under the exemption provisions of Section 24(4) of the RTI Act, 2005. The department was classified as an “Intelligence and security organisation.” The practical consequence was significant- to shield the information held by the department from the public, so that it would no longer be accessible under the RTI Act, subject to the statutory exceptions.
“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,” the government said.
But six days later, on September 27, the C. Joseph Vijay-led TVKa government withdrew it.
The rollback came after criticism from opposition parties, transparency activists and, significantly, allies within the government. After the heavy backlash, a fresh GO issued by the public department simply stated that “the September 21 Government Order stands revoked”. However, the controversy is not merely about the order being withdrawn but about what the order could have placed beyond the reach of citizens.
What was being exempted?
The Public (Law and Order) department, of course, is not a conventional intelligence agency. Its responsibilities include matters relating to communal and caste clashes, preventive detention under laws such as the NSA and COFEPOSA, political and student agitations, and law and order reviews. It also deals with inquiry reports concerning police firing, deaths in police custody, alleged police torture and deaths of remand prisoners. References involving the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) also come within its ambit. All these come under the Home Department, a portfolio held by Vijay himself. This explains why the September 21 notification immediately attracted attention and why it was withdrawn after strong opposition.
For an RTI applicant seeking information on police firing, custodial deaths or the government’s handling of a communal clash, access to the department’s records could be crucial, because of the controversial order. The concern was not simply about bureaucratic files but about information connected to the exercise of state power.
The legal route
The government did not create a new exemption outside the RTI Act. It invoked Section 24 (4), which permits a state government, by notification in the official gazette, to specify an intelligence or security organisation established by it to which the Act would not apply. The controversy therefore centred on the classification of the Public (Law and Order) department as an intelligence and security organisation.
Apparently, TVK’s virtual warriors and Vijay supporters defended the order, saying sensitive law and order information needed protection. Electricity and law minister C.T.R. Nirmal Kumar, under whose purview the order was issued, defended the move, saying that only certain sensitive information, particularly relating to communal clashes, would be withheld. He also indicated that the government could reconsider the decision if there was public dissatisfaction. But critics questioned the sweeping nature of the exemption. Congress MP Karti Chidambaram said the move set a poor precedent for democratic accountability, while CPM MP Su. Venkatesan called for its withdrawal. Opposition parties, including the DMK, also attacked the order politically.
Why the rollback matters?
The speed of the reversal is perhaps as striking as the original order, sending a message on how the TVK government has been struggling in decision-making with regard to crucial matters. The notification was issued on September 21. By September 27, it was revoked, restoring the status quo. But several questions remain unanswered even now. Law minister Nirmal Kumar who once defended the order, however, did not explain how such a consequential exemption reached the Gazette in the first place, which apparently is the most uncomfortable question for the administration.
The second question is whether the move was the result of a considered assessment of security requirements. The government or the law department seems to be clueless on whether the scope of the proposed exemption was properly examined before issuing the GO and whether the implications for transparency and existing RTI practices were fully assessed before the notification was issued.
Incidentally, the government has not publicly offered any detailed explanation for why the order was issued and then withdrawn so quickly. Nirmal Kumar, who usually sounds vociferous against the opposition DMK, too remained silent without explaining the reason for the withdrawal.
More than a bureaucratic U-turn
RTI is built on a simple democratic principle—information held by public authorities belongs, subject to legitimate exemptions, in the public domain. Administration of the Law and Order inevitably involves sensitive information which is already recognised by the RTI Act. But the September episode shows how consequential the boundary between secrecy and transparency can become when an entire department is brought within an exemption. The rollback could settle the immediate problem, but the question of institutional process remains unanswered.
For a government that came to power promising change and a different style of administration, the RTI episode offers an early test of how decisions affecting transparency are made. The order may have lasted only six days, but the questions it raised are likely to linger much longer, becoming a black mark on the Vijay administration..
Moreover, this is one among the many U-turns by the TVK government in the past four months. The first was the order appointing Vijay’s personal astrologer Ricky Radhan Pandit as the Officer on Special Duty in the CMO, which was later withdrawn within hours. And then came the most controversial withdrawal. The administration issued a circular attempting to bar college and school students from joining the Left-backed and CJP protests, which was withdrawn within two days following widespread political and public criticism.
