The Tamil Nadu government has withdrawn its recent order exempting the Public (Law and Order) Department from the Right to Information Act, reversing the decision within days after criticism from opposition parties, civil-society voices and an ally of the ruling Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam government.
What changed
The state’s Human Resources Management Department had issued an order on September 21 placing the Public (Law and Order) Department under the exemption mechanism in Section 24(4) of the RTI Act. That provision allows state governments to specify certain intelligence and security organisations that are outside the ordinary disclosure regime, subject to statutory exceptions. Critics questioned whether the law-and-order department as a whole should receive such a broad exemption.
On September 27, the government issued a fresh order revoking the exemption. The withdrawal was reported by multiple national outlets, which cited the state’s notification saying the earlier order “stands revoked”. The reversal came after criticism from opposition parties and also from CPI(M), an ally of the state government.
Why it matters
The controversy concerns more than an administrative classification. The Right to Information Act is a key transparency mechanism used by citizens, journalists and civil-society organisations to seek records on government decision-making. A broad exemption for a law-and-order department could potentially affect access to information concerning policing, public-order decisions and administrative accountability, although exempt organisations remain subject to specific provisions dealing with allegations of corruption and human-rights violations.
The government has not abandoned its authority to invoke Section 24 where legally justified. Instead, it has withdrawn this specific notification after the political and public response. That distinction is important: the rollback does not amount to a judicial ruling on the legality of the earlier order.
Political context
Opposition parties used the episode to question the government’s transparency credentials, while the administration’s decision to revoke the order indicates that it chose not to defend the exemption in its original form. Political claims about motive remain contested and should be separated from the documented sequence of the two government orders.
For citizens, the immediate consequence is straightforward: the Public (Law and Order) Department is no longer covered by the September 21 exemption order, restoring the position that existed before that notification.
