Sunilkumar. K vs Joint Deputy Director
2026 Latest Caselaw 312 Ker

Kerala High Court

Sunilkumar. K vs Joint Deputy Director on 14 January, 2026

                                                      2026:KER:2537
W.P(C) No.20066/2023              1


               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                               PRESENT

            THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED NIAS C.P.

   WEDNESDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF JANUARY 2026 / 24TH POUSHA, 1947

                       WP(C) NO. 20066 OF 2023

PETITIONER/S:

             SUNILKUMAR. K,
             AGED 47 YEARS, KRISHNANKUTTY NAIR, MIDHUNAM, V P
             15/112E KAKKULAM ROAD, KUNDAMANBHAGAM, PEYAD P O,
             THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695573

             BY ADVS.
             SMT.SINDHU SANTHALINGAM
             SHRI.A.D.SHAJAN
             SMT.JESSY S.SALIM



RESPONDENT/S:

     1       JOINT DEPUTY DIRECTOR,
             INTELLIGENCE BUREAU, MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS,
             GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, 35, SARDAR PATEL MARG, NEW
             DELHI, PIN - 110021

     2       DEPUTY DIRECTOR (APPELLATE AUTHORITY),
             INTELLIGENCE BUREAU (MHA) 35, S P MARG. NEW DELHI,
             PIN - 110021.

  ADDL.R3    THE CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSIONER,
             NEW DELHI.
             (IS SUO MOTU IMPLEADED VIDE ORDER DT. 27/6/24 IN
             WP(C) 20066/23)

             BY ADV SHRI.SUVIN R.MENON, FOR R1 & R2
             SRI.M.AJAY, SC FOR R3


      THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
09.01.2026, THE COURT ON 14.01.2026 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
                                                                                     2026:KER:2537
W.P(C) No.20066/2023                            2




                           MOHAMMED NIAS C.P., J.
                   ......................................................
                           W.P(C) No. 20066 of 2023
                    .............................................................
                  Dated this the 14th day of January, 2026


                                        JUDGMENT

The petitioner challenges Exts. P6 and P8 orders issued by the

Central Public Information Officer and the First Appellate Authority of

the Intelligence Bureau, whereby disclosure of the information sought by

the petitioner regarding the reasons for his non-appointment to the post

of Immigration Assistant was declined by invoking Section 24 of the

Right to Information Act, 2005.

2. The petitioner contends that he is an ex-serviceman who

rendered more than 25 years of unblemished service in the Indian Army.

He applied for the post of Immigration Assistant pursuant to the

notification issued by the Intelligence Bureau, Ministry of Home Affairs

and was called for an interview, which he successfully attended, and

thereafter underwent character and antecedent verification. Despite

being otherwise eligible and meritorious, the petitioner was not 2026:KER:2537

appointed, while several juniors with lesser credentials were selected.

According to the petitioner, the denial of appointment was solely based

on an adverse Intelligence Bureau report prepared after obtaining a

statement from his estranged wife, who was admittedly prejudiced

against him due to adverse judicial findings rendered against her.

3. The petitioner submits that the marital dispute relied upon in

the verification process stood conclusively adjudicated by the Family

Court, Thiruvananthapuram, which dissolved the marriage on findings

of adultery against the petitioner's wife and awarded compensation in

favour of the petitioner. The said findings were affirmed up to the

Hon'ble Supreme Court, and therefore reliance on the version of the

petitioner's ex-wife, ignoring binding judicial determinations, is

arbitrary and vitiated by mala fides.

4. The petitioner further submitted Ext. P5 representation dated

11.01.2023 seeking to be informed of the reasons for his non-selection.

The Joint Deputy Director and Central Public Information Officer, by Ext.

P6 reply dated 25.01.2023, informed the petitioner that it was not

necessary to provide the information sought in view of Section 24(1) of 2026:KER:2537

the RTI Act, 2005. The petitioner thereafter filed an appeal before the

Appellate Authority, which came to be rejected by Ext. P8 order dated

02.03.2023.

5. The petitioner further submits that during the pendency of

the writ petition, this Court, by order dated 15.04.2024, considering the

request of the applicant to file Second Appeal before the Central Public

Information Commissioner, held that the pendency of the writ petition

would not stand in the way of the Appellate Authority in considering the

request of the petitioner for information. Based on the aforesaid

direction, the applicant has preferred Ext. P10 application dated

19.04.2024. Pursuant thereto, the first respondent again rejected the

request by Ext. P11 order dated 06.06.2024, which was followed by Ext.

P13 appellate order dated 06.06.2024, reiterating the very same reasons.

6. Thereafter, this Court, by Ext. P14 order dated 27.06.2024,

passed the following directions:

"I find from Ext. P13 that the contention of the petitioner with regard to exclusion of all exemption provided in the first proviso to Section 24 of the RTI Act is not addressed by 2026:KER:2537

the Authority. Accordingly, the petitioner may file an appeal against Ext. P13 highlighting the above contention within a period of 30 days and if such appeal is received, the Central Information Commissioner, New Delhi, who is impleaded suo motu as the additional 3rd respondent, is directed to consider the said appeal within a further period of two months after adverting to all the contentions of the petitioner."

7. Pursuant to the above direction, the petitioner filed a second

appeal before the Central Information Commission. However, by Ext. P15

order dated 14.08.2025, the Central Information Commission held that

the response furnished by the respondents was in order and required no

interference under the RTI Act. The petitioner contends that Ext. P15

order has completely ignored the binding directions issued by this Court

and does not assign any independent reasons for withholding the

information sought.

8. The petitioner argues that though the Intelligence Bureau is

an organisation exempted under Section 24 of the Right to Information

Act, the proviso thereto clearly carves out an exception in cases

involving allegations of corruption and human rights violations.

2026:KER:2537

According to the petitioner, denial of appointment based on undisclosed

and unverified material, without allowing rebuttal of the same,

constitutes a violation of human rights, thereby attracting the proviso to

Section 24. Therefore, Section 24 is not an absolute bar, and the

authorities have proceeded on the erroneous assumption that the

Intelligence Bureau as an institution is wholly exempt from the Act.

9. According to the petitioner, only activities directly connected

with national security are exempted, and wrongful acts intended to

confer benefit on particular individuals constitute corruption. The

petitioner submits that corruption is not confined to bribery alone, but

includes abuse of power, fraud, embezzlement and influence peddling,

and that such acts fall squarely within the exception carved out under

the proviso to Section 24.

10. It is contended that Exts. P6 and P8 orders mechanically

invoke Section 24 without examining whether the information sought

falls within the statutory exception, and without assigning any reasons

as to how disclosure would affect national security or public interest.

2026:KER:2537

11. The petitioner places reliance on the judgment of the Delhi

High Court in Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) Central Bureau of

Investigation v. Sanjeev Chaturvedi (2024 SCC OnLine Del 692 : WPC

No.2833/2020), wherein it was held that Intelligence Bureau reports are

disclosable when the information pertains to allegations of corruption or

violation of human rights, and that such disclosure does not

automatically stand barred under Section 24.

12. It is therefore contended that Exts. P6 and P8 are illegal,

arbitrary, and contrary to the scheme of the Right to Information Act,

and the petitioner has a legally protected statutory right to obtain the

reasons for non-selection to the said post, as no public interest would be

prejudiced by such disclosure.

13. The respondents in the counter affidavit filed have

contended that the writ petition is not maintainable, since the petitioner

had already pursued the statutory remedy under the Right to

Information Act up to the Central Information Commission, and the

Second Appeal was rejected by Ext. P15 order, and the petitioner has not

challenged the said order.

2026:KER:2537

14. It is submitted that the Intelligence Bureau is an

organisation expressly exempted from the applicability of the Right to

Information Act under Section 24(1), being an organisation specified in

the Second Schedule, and therefore, no information could be furnished.

It is contended that Ext. P6 reply issued by the Central Public

Information Officer and Ext. P8 order passed by the First Appellate

Authority strictly follows the statutory mandate of Section 24 of the Act,

and the refusal to disclose information is lawful and valid.

15. The respondents submit that the petitioner was only one

among a large pool of candidates considered for contractual

appointment. Out of 3747 candidates enlisted for selection in Kerala, only

229 candidates were appointed. The selection process involved an

interview, character and antecedent verification, and medical

examination, all conducted in accordance with the approved procedure.

The petitioner, though permitted to participate, did not pass the

selection process and hence was not selected.

16. It is contended that the petitioner was given equal

opportunity along with other candidates and that no illegality, 2026:KER:2537

arbitrariness or mala fides can be attributed to the selection process. The

respondents further submit that no vested or enforceable right accrues

to a candidate merely by participation in the selection process. The

respondents specifically deny the petitioner's contention that the

proviso to Section 24 is attracted, contending that no allegation of

corruption or human rights violation was raised in the RTI application or

statutory appeals. According to the respondents, the grievance relates

only to non-selection for contractual appointment.

17. Heard Sri. P. Santhalingam, Sindhu Santhalingam, learned

counsel for the petitioners, and Sri. Suvin R Menon for the 1 st and 2nd

respondents, and Sri M.Ajay for the additional 3rd respondent.

18. Having considered the rival submissions and perused the

materials on record, the only question that arises for consideration is

whether the refusal to furnish information sought by the petitioner

under the Right to Information Act, 2005, by invoking Section 24(1) of

the RTI Act, is legally sustainable.

19. A perusal of Ext. P5 application submitted by the petitioner 2026:KER:2537

under the RTI Act would clearly show that the grievance projected

therein was confined to the petitioner's non-selection for contractual

appointment as Immigration Assistant and a request to know the reasons

for such non-employment. Significantly, no allegation whatsoever of

corruption or violation of human rights was raised in Ext. P5 application.

The queries raised therein do not disclose even a remote assertion that

the action complained of involved abuse of power, mala fides amounting

to corruption, or infringement of any recognised human right.

20. Section 24(1) of the RTI Act expressly excludes intelligence

and security organisations specified in the Second Schedule from the

purview of the Act. The proviso thereto carves out a limited exception

only in cases where the information sought pertains to allegations of

corruption or human rights violations. In the absence of such allegations

in the RTI application itself, the statutory exemption under Section 24(1)

operates in full force.

21. In the present case, the attempt of the petitioner to

characterise non-selection for employment as a human rights violation,

at a later stage of proceedings, cannot enlarge the scope of the original 2026:KER:2537

RTI request.

22. It is also relevant to note that the petitioner, pursuant to the

directions issued by this Court on 27.06.2024, approached the Central

Information Commission by way of a second appeal. The Central

Information Commission, by Ext. P15 order dated 14.08.2025, found that

the response furnished by the respondents was in accordance with the

law and declined to grant any relief. Ext. P15 order has not been

independently challenged in the present writ petition.

23. In such circumstances, this Court finds no illegality,

arbitrariness, or procedural impropriety in Exts. P6 and P8 orders passed

by the Central Public Information Officer and the First Appellate

Authority. The invocation of Section 24(1) of the RTI Act, in the facts of

the present case, is justified, and the petitioner has failed to bring his

request within the narrow exception carved out under the proviso to the

said provision.

24. The reliance placed by the petitioner on the decision of the

Delhi High Court in Sanjiv Chaturvedi (supra) does not advance his case, 2026:KER:2537

as the said decision was rendered in the context of explicit allegations of

corruption, which are conspicuously absent in the present case. For all

the above reasons, this Court is of the view that the writ petition is

devoid of merit. Exts. P6 and P8 orders do not warrant interference

under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

25. It is clarified that this judgment is confined to the challenge

against the refusal of information under the Right to Information Act

and shall not preclude the petitioner from independently challenging

the selection process or his non-appointment to the post in accordance

with law, if so advised, and all contentions of the parties in such

proceedings are left open.

Subject to the above, the writ petition is dismissed.

Sd/-

MOHAMMED NIAS C.P. JUDGE

okb/ 2026:KER:2537

APPENDIX OF WP(C) NO. 20066 OF 2023

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE CHARACTER CERTIFICATE DTD. 31/3/2012 ISSUED BY INDIAN ARMY TO THE PETITIONER Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE PRESIDENT'S COMMISSION DTD. 21/10/2009 ISSUED BY THE PRESIDENT OF INDIA RECOGNISING THE FIDELITY, COURAGE AND GOOD CONDUCT OF THE PETITIONER Exhibit P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM DTD.

                        10/5/2022    ISSUED    BY     THE   INTELLIGENCE
                        BUREAU, MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, NEW DELHI
                        TO THE PETITIONER.
Exhibit P4              A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON JUDGMENT DTD.
                        23/4/2022 IN OP 1921/2013, OP 868/2016 AND
                        OP    432/2018    OF     THE     FAMILY   COURT,
                        THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
Exhibit P5              A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD.
                        11/1/2023 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO

THE DIRECTOR, INTELLIGENCE BUREAU, MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, NEW DELHI Exhibit P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DTD. 25/1/2023 ISSUED BY THE JOINT DEPUTY DIRECTOR, INTELLIGENCE BUREAU AND CENTRAL PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER TO THE PETITIONER.

Exhibit P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL DTD. 15/2/2023 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR (APPELLATE AUTHORITY) INTELLIGENCE BUREAU.

Exhibit P8 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 2/3/2023 ISSUED BY THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR & FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY, INTELLIGENCE BUREAU TO THE PETITIONER.

Exhibit P9              A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD. 23/8/2017
                        OF   THE   DELHI    HIGH     COURT    IN  SANJIV

CHATHURVEDI VS. CPIO, INTELLIGENCE BUREAU.

Exhibit P10 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DTD.

19/4/2024 UNDER RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT Exhibit P11 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.11/LC/2023(3)-

336-37 DTD. 3/5/2024 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT Exhibit P12 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL NO. F NO.11/LC/2023(3)- 413-14 OF 2024 BEFORE THE 2026:KER:2537

FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY ON 17/5/2024 FILED BY THE APPLICANT Exhibit P13 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 6/6/2024 OF THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY Exhibit P14 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 27/6/2024 IN W P ( C) NO. 20066/2023 OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA Exhibit P15 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN SECOND APPEAL NO. CIC/INBRU/A/2024/124782 DTD. 14/8/2025 OF THE CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION, NEW DELHI