Section 24: Which Intelligence and Security Organisations Are Exempt from RTI — and What They Still Can't Hide

Most people who have used the RTI Act are familiar with Section 8 — the long list of exemptions that allow public authorities to withhold information on grounds ranging from national security to personal privacy. Section 8 is the standard refusal toolkit. But there is a separate, structurally different kind of exemption in the RTI Act that applies not to categories of information but to entire organisations.

That is Section 24.

Section 24 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 carves out a specific list of intelligence and security organisations from the Act's reach. For those organisations, the starting presumption is reversed: the default is non-disclosure, not disclosure. If you file an RTI with the Intelligence Bureau or the Research and Analysis Wing, you are not going to get a routine CPIO response with a partial redaction and a Section 8 citation. The Act, by and large, simply does not apply to them.

But — and this is the critical point that most people miss — this is not a blanket immunity. Section 24 has a hard, unconditional exception carved into it. And that exception covers the two situations where transparency matters most: corruption within the organisation and human rights violations.

Understanding Section 24 in full — what it exempts, what it does not, which organisations are covered, and how to use the exception if it applies — is essential for anyone trying to hold these bodies to account.

Why a Separate Provision Was Needed

Before looking at the text, it helps to understand why Section 24 exists as a provision distinct from Section 8.

The RTI Act's core logic is that every public authority must respond to information requests within 30 days, must proactively disclose certain information, and must accept and process appeals. This framework assumes an authority with an identified CPIO, an appellate structure, and a reason to engage with the process.

For intelligence and security bodies, that entire framework is — by design — operationally impossible to apply wholesale. Intelligence agencies like the IB and RAW operate on a need-to-know basis. Their work depends on secrecy not just about individual pieces of information but about sources, methods, operational structures, and the very fact of certain activities. Requiring them to engage with RTI applications about their day-to-day work, appoint CPIOs, respond within 30 days, and participate in CIC hearings about their operational files would create a serious threat to their ability to function.

Section 8 exemptions — the kind you would invoke to refuse a specific document — are not a sufficient answer for these organisations. Section 8 works document by document. It requires the authority to have received your application, identified a specific document you want, and then decided whether that document falls within an exempted category. For an intelligence organisation, even engaging in that exercise at the operational level could be a security risk.

So Parliament created Section 24 as a threshold-level exclusion. Certain organisations — specifically named in the Second Schedule to the Act — are taken outside the Act's scope entirely. The RTI Act does not apply to them in the first instance. You do not get to the exemption analysis because the Act itself has not engaged.

But Parliament also understood that the same power that makes an intelligence organisation potentially necessary also makes it potentially dangerous. An intelligence body with zero accountability is not a feature of a functioning democracy — it is a liability. So alongside the exemption, Parliament embedded the corruption and human rights exception. It is narrow, but it is mandatory. And it cannot be wished away.

Section 24(1): The Central Government Exemption

Section 24(1) reads, in substance, that the provisions of the RTI Act do not apply to the intelligence and security organisations specified in the Second Schedule to the Act.

The Second Schedule is a list of organisations that Parliament determined should be excluded from the Act's reach. The organisations named in the original Second Schedule to the RTI Act, 2005 include:

• Intelligence Bureau (IB)
• Research and Analysis Wing (RAW / R&AW) — the Cabinet Secretariat's external intelligence wing
• Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI)
• Central Economic Intelligence Bureau (CEIB)
• Directorate of Enforcement (ED)
• Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB)
• Aviation Research Centre (ARC)
• Special Frontier Force
• Border Security Force (BSF) — in respect of its intelligence functions
• Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) — in respect of its intelligence functions
• Indo-Tibetan Border Police (ITBP) — in respect of its intelligence functions
• Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) — in respect of its intelligence functions
• National Security Guard (NSG)
• Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO)
• Financial Intelligence Unit, India (FIU-IND)
• Special Protection Group (SPG)

Two things are worth noting about this list.

First, for paramilitary forces like the BSF, CRPF, ITBP, and CISF, the exemption applies specifically to their intelligence functions — not to their entire existence as organisations. These forces also perform a wide range of administrative, operational, and welfare functions. The RTI Act does not cease to apply to the administrative side of these organisations simply because their intelligence functions are on the Second Schedule. A question about personnel transfers, canteen operations, or procurement does not automatically fall within the Section 24 exemption just because the BSF appears on the list.

Second, the Second Schedule can be — and has been — amended. The Central Government can add or remove organisations by notification in the Official Gazette under Section 24(4). The definitive current list is always the version of the Second Schedule in force on the date you file your RTI. If you want to verify which organisations are currently listed, the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions publishes the current text of the RTI Act, and the Second Schedule is appended to it.

Section 24(1) Proviso: The Exception That Cannot Be Removed

Now we come to the most important part of Section 24 for a citizen trying to hold these organisations accountable.

Section 24(1) contains a proviso — a qualifying clause that places a hard limit on the exemption. The proviso states:

"Provided that the information pertaining to the allegations of corruption and human rights violations shall not be excluded under this sub-section."

This is, without qualification, the most significant limit in Section 24. It is worth reading slowly.

The proviso does not say that information about corruption and human rights violations "should generally be disclosed." It does not create a balancing test where the CPIO weighs the harm against the public interest. It does not allow the organisation to claim that even corruption-related information falls within some other exemption. It says, plainly, that such information shall not be excluded under Section 24(1).

The word "shall" is mandatory. Even IB, RAW, the ED, NCB, and every other organisation on the Second Schedule must respond to RTI applications that pertain to allegations of corruption or human rights violations within the organisation.

What does this mean in practice?

• If you allege that a specific officer of the Enforcement Directorate accepted a payment to close a foreign exchange violation case, and you seek information about what inquiry (if any) was held — that is an allegation of corruption. Section 24 does not shield the ED from responding to it.
• If you seek information about a death in BSF custody — whether an inquiry was conducted, what the inquiry found, whether disciplinary proceedings were initiated — that is an allegation of a human rights violation. The BSF cannot invoke Section 24 to refuse it.
• If you ask whether the CRPF conducted an internal investigation into an alleged instance of excessive force or custodial abuse — Section 24 does not apply. You are entitled to a response.
• If you seek the IB's operational intelligence reports on a particular surveillance program — that is squarely within the Section 24 exemption. The Act does not apply.
• If you seek information about allegations that IB officers fabricated evidence against a specific person — that is a corruption and human rights allegation. The proviso applies.

The line between what is and what is not covered by the proviso is not always clean. But the core principle is clear: operational intelligence activity is exempt; official misconduct, corruption, and violations of fundamental rights are not.

Section 24(2): State Intelligence Organisations

Section 24(2) gives state governments the power to notify their own intelligence and security organisations as exempt from the RTI Act, in the same way that Central Government bodies are listed in the Second Schedule.

A state government does this by issuing a notification in the Official Gazette. Once notified, a state intelligence organisation enjoys the same Section 24 exemption as its Central Government counterparts.

The critical point: the same corruption and human rights exception applies to state-notified organisations. A state government cannot exempt an organisation from RTI and simultaneously shield that organisation's misconduct from scrutiny. The proviso in Section 24(1) applies equally to state-notified organisations.

If you want to know which state organisations have been notified under Section 24(2) in a particular state, the relevant state's Official Gazette is the source. State government portals often publish RTI Act-related notifications.

Section 24(4): Adding and Removing Organisations

Section 24(4) provides the mechanism by which the Second Schedule can be amended. The Central Government can, by notification, add or remove organisations from the Second Schedule.

This is not merely a formality. Over the years, organisations have been added to the Second Schedule by Central Government notification. The current list may therefore differ from what appeared in the original 2005 Act. When researching whether a particular organisation is exempt, always verify against the current Second Schedule as amended — not just the original Act text.

The Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions is the nodal ministry for the RTI Act and maintains the current version. The CIC's website also references the current Second Schedule in relevant decisions.

Bodies That Are Not on the Second Schedule

This is where a significant amount of confusion exists in practice, and getting it right matters.

Several agencies that sound like intelligence or security organisations are not on the Second Schedule and are therefore fully subject to the RTI Act.

The most important of these is the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI).

The CBI is not listed in the Second Schedule. Section 24 does not apply to the CBI. The CBI has a CPIO. It must process RTI applications. It must maintain an appellate structure. It is a public authority under the RTI Act in the same way that any other government body is.

This does not mean every piece of CBI information is freely available. But the mechanism for withholding it is Section 8 — specifically Section 8(1)(h), which exempts information that would impede the investigation, detection, apprehension, or prosecution of offenders. That exemption is only valid while an investigation is actually ongoing. Once a CBI case is concluded — charges filed, case closed, final report submitted — Section 8(1)(h) ceases to apply to that case. You can then file an RTI for case files, inquiry reports, and related records.

The practical difference between the CBI and a Second Schedule organisation is substantial. With the CBI, you file a routine RTI, and if the response is a refusal, you have a full appeal path under Sections 19(1) and 19(3) on the same basis as any other refusal. The Section 24 framework — with its threshold exclusion and proviso — does not enter the picture at all.

Delhi Police is another frequently confused body. Delhi Police is not on the Second Schedule. It is a public authority fully subject to RTI, though it routinely cites Section 8(1)(g) and Section 8(1)(h) for operational and investigation-related matters. The paramilitary forces on the Second Schedule — BSF, CRPF, ITBP, CISF — are central forces under the Ministry of Home Affairs. Delhi Police is a separate institution under the GNCT of Delhi (with the Delhi Police Commissioner reporting to the Central Government in certain administrative matters). It is not an intelligence or security organisation in the Second Schedule sense.

The distinction matters because if you are trying to get information from a body that is on the Second Schedule, you need to frame your RTI around the corruption/human rights proviso if you want any chance of a response. If you are dealing with a body that is simply subject to Section 8, your path is different — and in some ways, broader.

How to Frame an RTI That Invokes the Section 24 Proviso

If you are filing an RTI with a Second Schedule organisation, the most common mistake is treating it like a routine RTI application. A generic request — "Please provide all documents relating to subject matter" — will almost certainly be returned with a brief response citing Section 24(1). The organisation has no obligation to engage further.

If your RTI pertains to corruption or a human rights violation, you need to say so — explicitly, at the application stage.

Here is what that looks like in practice.

In the body of your application, include a clear statement of the nature of the allegation you are making. For example:

"This application pertains to allegations of corruption involving an officer of organisation. Specifically, I seek information regarding whether any inquiry, departmental proceeding, or disciplinary action has been initiated concerning allegations that officer's designation accepted improper payments / misused authority / fabricated evidence in connection with matter. I submit that this application falls within the proviso to Section 24(1) of the RTI Act, 2005, which provides that information pertaining to allegations of corruption and human rights violations shall not be excluded under Section 24(1)."

For a human rights allegation, the framing would be:

"This application pertains to an alleged human rights violation involving organisation. Specifically, I seek information regarding whether any inquiry was conducted into the death / injury / unlawful detention of person in facility or in custody of which force on or around approximate date, and if so, the findings and action taken. This application falls within the proviso to Section 24(1) of the RTI Act, 2005."

Two things matter here. First, the allegation must be specific. A vague claim that "I believe there is corruption in this organisation" is not sufficient to invoke the proviso. The proviso is triggered by a specific allegation relating to identifiable conduct. You do not need to prove the allegation — you need to identify it concretely enough that it is clear you are not simply trying to use the magic words to get around the Section 24 exemption.

Second, you should explicitly cite the proviso in your application. The CPIO of a Second Schedule organisation is trained to refuse RTI applications. Citing the proviso in your application creates a clear legal record: the CPIO knew your basis, and any refusal that fails to address the proviso is legally deficient.

What to Do If a Second Schedule Organisation Wrongly Refuses

Even with a well-framed application invoking the Section 24(1) proviso, you may receive a refusal. The CPIO may simply repeat that "the organisation is listed in the Second Schedule and the Act does not apply." They may not address the proviso at all.

This is a legally deficient refusal. Here is what to do.

Step 1: First Appeal under Section 19(1).

File a First Appeal with the First Appellate Authority (FAA) within 30 days of the date of the decision or the expiry of the 30-day response period, whichever applies. Every public authority — including Second Schedule organisations — must have a First Appellate Authority. The existence of a First Appeal mechanism is not negated by Section 24.

In your appeal, state the argument directly:

"The CPIO has refused this application citing Section 24(1). However, my application was expressly framed under the proviso to Section 24(1), which provides that information pertaining to allegations of corruption and human rights violations shall not be excluded under Section 24(1). The CPIO's response does not address the proviso. I request that the First Appellate Authority order the CPIO to respond to the application on the merits, on the basis that the proviso to Section 24(1) applies."

Step 2: Second Appeal under Section 19(3) to the CIC.

If the FAA also refuses — either by upholding the CPIO's refusal or by not addressing the proviso argument — escalate to the Central Information Commission under Section 19(3).

The CIC has jurisdiction to hear second appeals even when they involve Second Schedule organisations, specifically in cases where the applicant argues that the proviso to Section 24(1) applies. The CIC has issued decisions in which it has held that the Section 24(1) proviso is mandatory and that CPIOs of Second Schedule organisations cannot invoke Section 24 as a blanket shield against corruption and human rights disclosures.

In your second appeal to the CIC, document the full trail: your original application (with the explicit proviso framing), the CPIO's refusal, your First Appeal, and the FAA's response. Establish clearly that at every stage, you identified your application as falling within the proviso, and at every stage the authority failed to address it.

The Harder Question: Administrative vs. Intelligence Functions

One area of genuine ambiguity in Section 24 is the treatment of purely administrative information held by Second Schedule organisations.

Consider the DRDO. It appears on the Second Schedule. But DRDO also makes budgetary decisions, procures equipment and supplies, employs researchers, and runs administrative functions — none of which are intelligence functions in the traditional sense. If you ask the DRDO for its annual procurement expenditure, or its canteen contract, or the criteria for selecting candidates for a particular research program, are you asking about "intelligence and security" functions that the Section 24 exemption is designed to protect?

The honest answer is that this is contested territory. Some CPIOs of Second Schedule organisations apply Section 24 as a total shield — any information, regardless of its administrative or operational nature, is refused. Others draw a distinction between operational intelligence functions and administrative functions, and respond to questions of the latter kind.

The CIC has, in several decisions, taken the position that Section 24 does not exempt purely administrative, budgetary, or ministerial information held by Second Schedule organisations. The better view is that the exemption is designed to protect operational functions — sources, methods, intelligence reports, personnel deployments in sensitive roles — not the organisation's general administration.

If you are asking a Second Schedule organisation about its administrative functioning and receive a blanket Section 24 refusal, it is worth challenging that refusal on the grounds that your question does not pertain to the intelligence or security functions that Section 24 is designed to protect.

Putting It All Together

Section 24 is one of the most misunderstood provisions of the RTI Act. It is often invoked — by CPIOs and commentators alike — as if it means "intelligence agencies are completely beyond the law." That is not what it says.

What Section 24(1) says is that the Act does not apply to Second Schedule organisations. That is the general rule.

What the proviso to Section 24(1) says is that this exemption does not extend to information pertaining to allegations of corruption and human rights violations. That is the hard limit.

The practical consequences are significant. The ED — which handles major enforcement cases and whose officers are in a position to cause serious harm through selective enforcement — is on the Second Schedule. But an RTI about corruption within the ED is not blocked by Section 24. The CRPF, which has deployed officers in conflict zones where human rights concerns regularly arise, is on the Second Schedule for its intelligence functions. But an RTI about a specific custodial death is not blocked by Section 24.

The proviso exists because Parliament understood that transparency about corruption and human rights violations is not merely a citizen convenience — it is a structural necessity for a democratic state. An exemption that also shielded corruption and official brutality would be an exemption from accountability, not from operational security concerns. Parliament drew that line clearly.

If you are asking a Second Schedule organisation a question that genuinely touches on its intelligence or security operations, Section 24 will apply and you are unlikely to get a response. But if your question is about misconduct, corruption, or violations of fundamental rights — frame it carefully, cite the proviso, and follow the appeal path. The law is on your side.

File with RTISathi

If you are trying to file an RTI with a Second Schedule organisation and need help framing your application to correctly invoke the Section 24(1) proviso, RTISathi can help. We have helped citizens navigate exactly these situations — drafting applications that are legally precise and that give the appeal path the best possible foundation.

Visit RTISathi.com to get started.