Organisations to which the Act does not apply — s. 24 — Right to Information (RTI) Notes

Organisations to which the Act does not apply — s. 24

Can you file an RTI against the Intelligence Bureau? Generally, no — it is in the Second Schedule. But there is a twist that turns this dry topic into an exam favourite: even for the excluded intelligence agencies, information about corruption and human-rights violations stays disclosable. The exclusion protects secrets, not misconduct.

An institutional exclusion, not a blanket bar

Section 24 excludes certain intelligence and security organisations — those specified in the Second Schedule (the Intelligence Bureau, the Research and Analysis Wing, the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, the CBI’s specified wings, the BSF, CRPF and similar bodies), and their State counterparts notified by State Governments — from the Act.

But the exclusion is not absolute. Two provisos matter:

A. The corruption / human-rights proviso

Information pertaining to allegations of corruption and human-rights violations is not excluded — it remains accessible (in the human-rights case, with the approval of the Information Commission and within a specified time).

B. Institutional, not subject-matter

The exclusion attaches to the listed organisations, not to a category of information across all bodies. An ordinary department cannot claim s. 24; only a Second-Schedule body can.

So the key exam point: s. 24 is an institutional exclusion with a corruption/human-rights carve-out — not a general “security” exemption (that is s. 8(1)(a)).

Section 24(1), RTI Act, 2005: “Nothing contained in this Act shall apply to the intelligence and security organisations specified in the Second Schedule… Provided that the information pertaining to the allegations of corruption and human rights violations shall not be excluded under this sub-section.”

In Simple Terms: The Act does not apply to listed intelligence and security agencies (IB, RAW, etc.). But even for them, information about corruption or human-rights violations must still be disclosed. It is an exclusion of certain bodies, with a hole cut in it for misconduct.

⚠️ DON’T CONFUSE — s. 24 (excluded organisations) vs s. 8(1)(a) (security exemption)

s. 8(1)(a) exempts security/sovereignty information held by any public authority. s. 24 takes named intelligence organisations out of the Act altogether — but with the corruption/human-rights carve-out. A department that is not in the Second Schedule cannot invoke s. 24; it must rely on s. 8(1)(a) clause-by-clause.

🧩 WORKED EXAMPLE — corruption allegation against an excluded body

Facts. A files an RTI seeking records of a specific corruption allegation against officers of a Second-Schedule intelligence agency.

Rule. s. 24 proviso: information pertaining to allegations of corruption and human-rights violations is not excluded.

Apply. Although the agency is generally outside the Act, the corruption-allegation information falls within the proviso and must be dealt with under the Act.

Conclusion. The request is maintainable to the extent it concerns the corruption allegation, notwithstanding s. 24.

flowchart TD
    A["Request to a Second-Schedule body (IB, RAW...)"]
    A --> B{"Does it concern corruption or human-rights violation?"}
    B -->|"Yes"| C["Not excluded — maintainable (s. 24 proviso)"]
    B -->|"No"| D["Excluded — Act does not apply (s. 24)"]
    classDef box fill:#e8f0fe,stroke:#333,color:#111;
    class A,C,D box;
    classDef q fill:#FFF3CD,stroke:#8a6d00,color:#111;
    class B q;

Case Laws

CBI / intelligence-agency RTI decisions (CIC) — the corruption and human-rights proviso is applied even to Second-Schedule bodies; the exclusion is institutional, not a blanket immunity from accountability.

📄 Full notes + Question Bank (₹199) — every topic in depth, model answers to all past KSLU questions, in one printable PDF. Get the bundle · 10 Solved Problems · All Right to Information (RTI) topics