Legal Analysis : Special Police Establishment v. Kamta Prasad Mishra & Ors

Citation: 2026 INSC 644

Court: Supreme Court of India

Bench: A Division Bench comprising Justice J.K. Maheshwari & Justice Atul S. Chandurkar

Date of Decision: June 15, 2026

Nature of Judgment: Criminal Appeal No. 3743 of 2024 against the judgment and order dated 20.12.2021 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Principal Bench at Jabalpur in Writ Petition No. 1575 of 2021.

Synopsis of the Judgment

The first respondent (accused in a corruption case under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988) sought information under the Right to Information Act, 2005 regarding the decision-making process for grant of sanction for his prosecution and the response of the Lokayukt to his queries. The Special Police Establishment (SPE) denied the information, relying on Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act (information impeding investigation) and a Notification dated 25.08.2011 issued by the State Government under Section 24(4) of the RTI Act, which purported to exempt the SPE from the application of the RTI Act. The State Information Commission upheld the denial, but the High Court directed supply of the information. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court, holding that the SPE cannot be termed an "intelligence and security organisation" under Section 24(4) of the RTI Act, as its jurisdiction is limited to investigating offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and certain provisions of the Indian Penal Code. The Court struck down the Notification dated 25.08.2011 to the extent it sought to exclude the SPE from the RTI Act, while clarifying that the Notification would continue to operate for the State Bureau of Investigation of Economic Offences. The Court also discussed the power of constitutional courts to examine the validity of subordinate legislation suo motu in rare and exceptional cases.

1. Basic Information of the Judgment

Case Title: Special Police Establishment v. Kamta Prasad Mishra & Ors.

Citation: 2026 INSC 644

Criminal Appeal No.: 3743 of 2024

Bench: Division Bench (Justice J.K. Maheshwari & Justice Atul S. Chandurkar)

Date of Decision: June 15, 2026

Court: Supreme Court of India (Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction)

Impugned Order: Judgment dated 20.12.2021 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Principal Bench at Jabalpur in Writ Petition No. 1575 of 2021, directing the SPE to supply the information sought by the first respondent.

2. Legal Framework

Major Laws and Provisions Involved

Right to Information Act, 2005 – Section 2(f) (definition of information), Section 3 (right to information), Section 6 (request for information), Section 7 (disposal of request), Section 8(1)(h) (exemption from disclosure of information which would impede investigation or prosecution of offenders), Section 24(1) (Act not to apply to intelligence and security organisations specified in Second Schedule – Central Government), Section 24(4) (State Government may by notification specify intelligence and security organisations established by it to which the Act does not apply), Section 24(5) (notification to be laid before State Legislature).

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – Offences investigated by SPE.

Madhya Pradesh Lokayukt Evam Up-Lokayukt Adhiniyam, 1981 – Section 2(b) (definition of "allegation"), Section 7 (matters that may be enquired into by Lokayukt or Up-Lokayukt), Section 13 (police agency at disposal of Lokayukt).

Madhya Pradesh Special Police Establishment Act, 1947 – Section 2(1) (constitution of SPE), Section 3 (State Government to specify offences to be investigated by SPE).

Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 409, 420 and Chapter XVIII (offences investigated by SPE).

Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 226 (writ jurisdiction of High Courts), Article 141 (law declared by Supreme Court binding).

Key Precedents Cited and Applied

Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India (1985) 1 SCC 641 – A piece of subordinate legislation does not carry the same degree of immunity as a statute; it can be questioned on the ground that it does not conform to the parent statute or exceeds the limits of authority conferred.

State of Tamil Nadu v. P. Krishnamurthy (2016) 11 SCC 126 – Subordinate legislation can be challenged on grounds including lack of legislative competence, violation of fundamental rights, failure to conform to enabling Act, manifest arbitrariness.

Bihar Rajya Dafadar Chaudikar Panchayat (Magadh Division) v. State of Bihar (2023) – Constitutional courts have the power to suo motu declare subordinate legislation invalid in rare and exceptional cases when patent unconstitutionality is manifest.

Bharathidasan University v. All India Council for Technical Educa

... Upgrade to a Premium Plan to view the full judgment.