Tamil Nadu

Tamil Nadu RTI Exemption Withdrawn: What GO 57 Meant and Why Vijay Govt Reversed It

Tamil Nadu withdrew GO Ms.No.57 after RTI backlash over a law-and-order exemption. What it covered, who opposed it, and what citizens can do now.

TN8 Editor

Sep 29, 2026 - 02:31

Updated: 24 hours ago

0 8

Tamil Nadu RTI Exemption Withdrawn: What GO 57 Meant and Why Vijay Govt Reversed It

Tamil Nadu’s government has withdrawn a contested order that briefly placed the state’s Public (Law and Order) Department outside routine Right to Information coverage. The climbdown followed days of criticism from parties and activists who warned that policing and security records risked being shut away from public view.

The timeline was brief. A government order issued around 21 September 2026 classed the department as an intelligence and security organisation under Section 24(4) of the RTI Act. Wider notice came about a week later. After pushback, Law Minister C.T.R. Nirmal Kumar first described the order as limited, then announced its withdrawal. A fresh order has confirmed that GO Ms.No.57 stands revoked, as reported by Indian Express, The Times of India and India Today.

For more Tamil Nadu political coverage on TN8, see our Tamil Nadu news section and related explainers linked below.

What was GO 57?

GO Ms.No.57 came from the Human Resources Management Department around 21 September 2026. It tagged the Public (Law and Order) Department as an intelligence and security organisation for Section 24(4) of the RTI Act.

That provision lets states keep certain intelligence and security bodies outside the Act’s normal disclosure duties, while still requiring information on corruption and human-rights violations to be shared. In practice, RTI officers reportedly began using the order to refuse applications from about 22 September—before the notification drew broader attention around 27 September, according to The Hindu’s editorial and contemporaneous reporting.

The government later said the exemption was meant to be narrow. Critics said labelling an entire law-and-order wing this way pointed to a wider freeze on disclosure.

What records could have been shut out

Fears focused on files that often decide whether official accounts can be checked. Critics pointed to material on custodial deaths, police firing, communal clashes, public agitations and security-related detentions.

Those subjects sit at the centre of how families, residents and reporters test what happened after violence or alleged excess. If RTI routes into the department were blocked or sharply limited, critics said, seekers of such papers could meet more refusals—even where human-rights questions were involved.

Those who favour tighter controls usually argue that sensitive operational detail needs protection. Here, the government’s early line stressed limited intent. The political response treated the order as a structural barrier around policing transparency.

How the backlash forced a U-turn

Scrutiny sharpened around 27 September, once the order’s use on the ground became clear. Viduthalai Chiruthaigal Katchi leader Thol. Thirumavalavan, Congress MP Karti Chidambaram, the Communist Party of India (Marxist), DMK MP Kanimozhi, the Pattali Makkal Katchi, the Amma Makkal Munnetra Kazhagam and the anti-corruption group Arappor Iyakkam were among those who criticised the exemption.

Hindustan Times and Livemint tracked how quickly ally and opposition pressure turned the notification into a liability. Law Minister C.T.R. Nirmal Kumar first said the order’s reach was limited. That did not end the row. The government then reversed course, and a fresh order recorded that GO 57 stands revoked.

How quickly the notification became a liability showed how sensitive RTI rules remain when they touch policing.

What the withdrawal means for citizens now

With GO 57 withdrawn, the Public (Law and Order) Department is no longer treated under that notification as an intelligence or security body carved out of routine RTI coverage. Applicants can again use the ordinary RTI route without that exemption being cited against them.

Withdrawal does not promise every policing file will be released. Departments may still invoke other exemptions in the Act, and appeals remain. What has changed is the baseline: a mid-September organisational tag under Section 24(4), reportedly used almost at once to refuse requests, is off the books.

For families seeking records after a custodial death, residents asking about firing or clashes, and reporters tracking detention practices, the doorway that briefly narrowed has been reopened—as far as this GO is concerned. Stay with TN8 for follow-ups as fresh orders and Information Commission developments appear.

Bigger transparency test for the TVK government

The episode leaves the TVK government with a credibility question. An order that drew notice only after RTI officers had reportedly started using it invited charges of stealth as much as substance. Withdrawal fixed the immediate problem but also set a marker: future efforts to ring-fence law-and-order information will face closer watch.

A Hindu editorial on 29 September placed the affair against wider transparency expectations and the backlog before the Tamil Nadu State Information Commission—a reminder that access depends on paper rules and how fast appeals are heard.

For a relatively new administration, the GO 57 saga signals that secrecy around policing records remains politically costly in Tamil Nadu. Restoring the RTI route was the easier step. Open handling of contested security and rights files will be the longer test.