The High Court · 2025

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAXA WRIT PETITION No. 3247 OF 2024 ORDER: Petitioner sought copies of Government Orders and Preventive Detention Orders issued by the 3'd respondent - Hyderabad Poiice Commissioner. He states that Special Branch of Hyderabad Police, under the direction of the Joint Commissioner of Police (Speciat Branch), refused to provide the requested information or, 13.09.2023, citing GO. Ms. No. Q67, dated O3.09.2007, impugned in this Writ Petition, issued by the 1"' respondent - General Administration Department of the erstwhile Andhra Pradesh Government, which petitioner argues is contran- to the mandate of 1a'*'. Pctitioner further states that provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, specifichlly Section 41C(2) and (3), mandates that prisoner-related information be kept in the public dom:rin and accessible to the public. It is contended that officers of the 2nd respondent are rvilfully violating this legal mandate. it is the case of petitioner, action of the lst respondent in not placing the Government Orders on the State's (' official webs;i-c and in public domain is violation of the order in W.P. (PIL) I'lo. 93 of 2O2I, clated 18.O8. 2O2 1, u'hercin it was directed tl'reL', ,:very department of the State should ens ure that Governmcn: tlrders are made available publicll'. P:titioner asserts that these directives are being disrcgardcd by the respondents; rvhich constitutes violation of petitioncr's lghts. Fetitioner further highlights that the Fight to Information I'r:t, 20O5 (for short,'the ActJ, under Section 24(4), provides thilt states can exempt certain departmcnts f 'om the purvierv o{ tlrr Act, subject to Section 24(5). Hou,ever, htr argues that the Statt: could not have issued the impugned Gor.t:rnment Orders that :,:ntradict the provisions o[ a central leg slation, violating r\rlicle 256 of the Constitution of India- IJe also requesls t he 1 st respondent to submit reler.ar-rt inrt : rd and outward recrliDts from their registe r lo confirm u'hct her the impugned (l() was placed before the State Legislat-rrc, as mandated b'y' -c'ection 24(5).

2. Sir Vijay Gopal, petitioner part1,'-in person ';ubmits that Sectior: )aQ) of the Act onlv exempts "Inr-ellige nr:e' and "Securi[," .r11:rLcies from the scope ofthe Act, subjecr to Section -) (1 24(51, and thus the Government Order issued by the 1"r respondenl is invalid as it was not placed before the State Legislature, making it an illegal executive order. It is submitted that when a central legislation mandates that certain information be made public, State cannot circumvent such a mandate through an executive order. According to petitioner, Sections 41C(2) and (3) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 mandates that prisoner related information must be made public, further obiigating the State to comply with this public disclosure requirement. The impugned GO is a sweeping order that contravenes law and exceeds the legal competence of the State. Petitioner claims that the said GO violates their Fundamental Right under Artrcle 14 and also Ultra Vires Article 25aQ) of the Constitulion. Failure to make Government Orders available on thc oflicial u,ebsite of the State, in violation of the Court's orders in W.P, (PIL) No. 93 ol 2O21, further highlights the disregard for judicral directives bv the Respondents.

3. The 3.d respondent - Commissioner of Police states that petitioner's request for specific information related to individuals detained under the Prevention of Detention Act from

02.06.2014 to 2023 was rejected through letter dated 4 r'

23.O5.2Ot1.3 nforming that P.D. Act Ce1l is part of thr' Special Branch. H1,r<lr:rabad Cit-v. which is exempted from d isclosing information under the RTI Act as per G.O.Ms.No.667, General Administrar,r,r r (GPM & AR) Department, dated 03.O9.2()O7. The said G.O. s;1, ercifically exempts certain organizarions, iircluding all Special Il: rLnches from the purview of the Act. It ollllines that intelligence and security organizations such as the State Intelligence l)epartment, Grel,hounds, APSP, SPF, SAR()PL, and all Distric:l Special Branches under thc con trol of Superinten<l: nts of Police are not obiigated to disclose information 'tt-rder the Act. The Special Brancit s rccords are conhdential . nd cannot be shared with petitioner. [n rhc Appeal preferred rc ihe government, petitioner \r'as in lorrned lhrough letter dated 13.09.2023 that all records and correspondence regarding ct'eventive detention under rhe p.D. lrct are conhdentizrl ,nd handled by the Special Branch. t.hich as per G.O.Ms. N':. 667, General Administration (GpM & AR) Department, dated O3.09.2OO7, is exempt from disclosing any information urLder the RTI Act. The petitioner w.ars also provtded with a copv :l the G.O. Rather than proceeding u.ith thc Second Appeal Lin,lc- Section 19(3), he filed the current Writ l,etition, 5 levelling baseless allegations. It is contended that Writ petition should not be entertained as petitioner failed to follow the proper appellate procedure under the Act. Additionally, it is stated, W.p. (pIL) No. 93 of 202 1 was filed biu Watch Voice of the People against Telangana Scheduled Castes Co-operative Development Corporation Limited. The petitioner in that case sought to challenge the release of funds under Dalita Bandhu scheme without proper procedures being followed. However, the Hon'ble Court, . irn

14.01.2021, dismissed the petirion, stating that relevant scheme had been duly approved by the Legislative Assembly and that there was no basis to enter[ain the Petition. Nevertheless, the Cour[ directed that all Government Orders be uploaded on the government website for public access. Hor,vever, it is submitted that the requested information pertains to personal details of individuals detained under thc P.D. Act, which is protected under the provisions of the Act. Further, the Special Branch is exempted from disclosing such information under Section 24 and the impugned. Thus, the information cannot be provided, and there is no justification for setting aside the G.O. or 6 t- imposing a penalty on the respondents. The rcquesl lor penalty of Rs. 2S,OCt(l is deemed inappropriate. f'(]titioner in the rejoinder stated that in the

4. counter. th(' 3r(i respondent stated that thc tnfr'rmation requested lrt petitioner, relating to detenues r-ln' ler lhe Preventive l)etention Orders (PDO), rvas denied baseci on the contents of (1.O. Ms. 667, however, they failed to prericnl any proof befrrr,: i-he Court showing that G.O. N{s. {167 rvas dulY placed befor: the State legislature, as mandatcd b,r' Section 2a(5) of the 1\ct. Moreover, Section 24 only' allorvs exem ltion for intelligenc e . nd securit5r agencies, subject to thc condi''ions set out in tJ're: i-egislation. The Respondenr's reliancr: on this cxemption ir; an overreach beyond the pou'ers vested n them According tcr pctitioner, the mandate of the RTI A'-:t should take prccedence :r'cr lhe executive order. Section 4i o[ the Code of Criminal Prccedure mandates that information r':garding prisoners. including those detained under Preventive Detention Orders, shc,r,ll be in puhlic domain- Therefore, it is imp-oper for lhe responi r::-rt to issue any executive order exempting such inlormation liom public access. It is contended that the impugned (1.O. is rn violation of the principles laid clou n in the 7 ,n Constitution, specihcally Articles 162, 254 and 256 as well as Section 4 1 ol the Code 5 Learned Government Pleader for Home reiterated the averments in the counter. Perused the record

6. The Right to Information Act, 20O5, provides a statutory frameu'ork for ensuring transparency and accountability in government institutions. Petitioner invoked the provisions of the Act, seeking access to information about individuals detained under the Preventive Detention (P.D.) Act. However, respondents relied on the exemptions provided under the Act, particularly Section 24(4), which exempts certain intelligence and security agencies, including Special Branch, purview Act. The cn.x of the dispute revolves around G.O. Ms. No. 667, dated O3.O9.2OO7 , issued by the Government of Andhra Pradesh (now Telangana). This Government Order exempts various intelligence and security agencies, including Special Branch of Police from the requirement to disclose information under the RTI Act. Petitioner contends that this exemption is invalid, citing Section 41C(2\ and, (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, r., u,hich man,, zrtes access to prisoner-related inforrnatron. The Respondenr,r;, hou,ever, argue that Special Branch lalls squarely rr,-ithin tl'r,: cxomption provided by G O Ms. No. 667 and the informarir,n sought by the petitioner cannot bc disc.osed in accordance viith the provisions of the RTI Act :.nd the cxemptions 11r.anted by the Government Order.

7. lie ction 24 of the Act provides that the sov(,rnmenl 24(s), m.1v excmpi. ,::rtain organizations from the punicr,,. of _he Act. Hou,ever, the cxemption is subject to the provisions of Section w.hi:ir lnandates that the exempted organizatio r must rcle,.,ant inlormation before the Legislature. pc,trtioner raised the is;r;r-Le that the impugned GO was not pl:rceo before thc Stalc ,-r:gislaturc as required b5. Sectron 24(5). Thc Respondr:nts, in their counter affidavit, have faik:d to :ro'idc an_\, prool sh,.rrr ing that the said G.O. was duly placed beftre the Legislature. as mandated by Section 2qli). Petltioner also points out that respondents failed to comp$ u,ith the directior-r s cf this Court in W.p. (pli.) No. 93 oi 2021 dated 18.08. 202I , u.hich required the State Governmenr to upl,rad all (jovernmen (_ rders lo the official website for public z ccess_ Dcspite these rl;rections, the Respondents have failecl to cnsure 9 {^ that the impugned Government Orders are made publicly available, which is another point of contentlon raised by the petitioner. However, respondents contend that the G.O, is in full compliance with the legal framework, and the failure to upload the order is not a violation that warrants intervention.

8. In this backdrop, this Court finds some force in the contention of petitioner as respondents failed to place the order before the Legislature as mandated under Section 24(5). Hence, it is felt appropriate to direct the respondents to lay. the impugned GO before the Legislature and thereafter, shall be placed in the public domain. g. As regards the issue of constitutionaiity of G.O. claiming that it violates Articles 762, 254 and 256 of the Constitution of India, petitioner argues that executive order cannot override a central legislation such as the RTI Act, and that the G.O., which exempts Special Branch lrom the purview of the Act, ultra uires the Constitution. Respondents, however, argue that G.O. is a valid executive order, and the exemption granted is in line with the RTI Act and its provisions. The contention of petitioner cannot be accepted for Section 24(4) t0 t^. itself mar-. da ()s thaL 'nothing contained in this Act shall apply to such intellill:Lrce and security organization being organizations establish.cl i)'. the Slate Government, as lhat governin(rn[ may, from time lo I r11s, by notification in the Official gazette spccify. In the cour: t:r. it has also been stated that P.D. Ac', Cell of Hyderaba,C Iblice Commissionerate is functioning urLder the Special Brarr:h. I{yderabad Cilv and all the correspondencc and I recoi:ds rnairrt-ained by the Special Branch are <;onhdt:nrial in nature ernd canr-]ot be shared with any individual. Thc Appellate Authoritr' &, \dditiona! Commissioner of police, Speciai Branch also after e <a;lining the reply, stated that the Specizrl Branch, Hyder:rbar1 ,.lltr is dealing with all the correspotrder rce and records kc,:pinq relating to P.D. Act and all the Special Branches.r;'c ,,->lcrnpted from sharing any information utrder the Act as cer ihi: impugned G.O. and the said G.O. $.as also sent to pe lr trori,.il

10. I ence, in view of the specific bar in the provision, this Court is cf the opinion that information soughr is not amenable for ciisclosure and Writ petition in respect of r he said relief fails. u 1 1. The Writ Petition is therefore, dismissed, however, directing the respondents to iay the impugned G.O. before the Legislature and thereafter, shall place the same in public domarn. 12 Consequently, the miscellaneous Applications, if any shall stand closed SD/.A. SRTNIVASA REDDY TANT REGISTRAR AS //TRUE COPY// S CTION OFFICER To, 1 2 The Secretary to Government, General Administratton Order) Depa'rtment, Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Telangana Saifa5ad, Hyderabad. Telangana 50oo22 The Home Department, Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Telangana Saifabad, Hydeiabad, Telangana 50OO22 (Special Law and State Secretariat, State Secretariat, 3 The Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad City Police. lntegrated Command and Control Centre (ICCC) Telangana Police, Road No 12, Bhavani Nagar' Banjara Hills. Hyderabad, Telangana 500034

4. Viiav Gopal, Aqed 35 vears, Occupation B.com, MBA, LLB (Lawyer), Address 'ti il- l'Oesni, 3rd f[oor, St 11, Shirdi Sai Nagar, Tarnaka, Secunderabad, 500017. 5 One CC to SRI VIJAY GOPAL [PARTY-IN-PERSON] 6. Two CCs to GP FOR HOME, High Court for the State of Telangana a{ Hyderabad [OUT]

7. Two CD Copies BSR BS 6 HIGH GOURT DATED: 2410212025 ORDER WP.No.3247 af 2024 I 1(\ ( z ) \ - -) i4 2 6 ilAn A[ * c() CY\ I 1-'spar \=: DISMISSING -THE WRIT PETITION, WITHOUT COSTS (9oq"u qyO