Lawfully yours: By Retired Justice K Chandru | Eternal vigilance needed as secrecy and exemptions continue to weaken RTI Act

The Tamil Nadu government recently exempted the Law and Order department from the RTI Act, only to revoke the order following widespread backlash. The retracted notification had invoked Section 24(4) of the transparency law to classify the department as an "Intelligence and Security Organisation", effectively shielding it from public scrutiny. Critics and allies alike condemned the move, warning that it could pave the way for the suppression of human rights. Had the order remained in force, access to crucial records concerning police torture, custodial deaths, police firings, communal clashes, and security-related detentions would have been blocked. Beyond the political reaction, this attempt raises significant legal questions about executive discretion. What are the constitutional boundaries for state governments when invoking Section 24(4)? Is there a legal mechanism or judicial standard that prevents a government from using executive orders to bypass statutory obligations of transparency and public accountability?

— Saravanan R, Parandur

The Official Secrets Act 1923, brought by the British government, still runs in our veins. Nothing will be transparent until the government voluntarily discloses information.

After independence, it took seven decades to enact the RTI Act. It was touted as a measure of transparency in governance, but very little of it came through as information, and in many places, RTI activists were attacked by vested interests. The Chief Justice of India even called them unemployed parasites and cockroaches.

In 1997, the TN government enacted an RTI Act under which exemptions were granted under 23 categories — just three short of all 26 letters of the English alphabet. Even under the 2005 Act, the judiciary wanted exemption, but thanks to Sonia Gandhi's stiff refusal, it was dropped. Today, no information can be sought from the PM Shree fund headed by the Prime Minister of this country. Even his educational qualification is barred under the RTI Act.

There is no surprise that the new govt wanted to cover itself with its abortive move of exempting the Public Dept from the RTI Act, and thanks to opposition voices, it was dropped. Now you cannot even ask who was the author of the move and who prevailed upon withdrawing it; even that will be kept a guarded secret. Ultimately, eternal vigilance is the price of freedom.

Executive transfers cannot be challenged under labour laws; civil remedy offers little

A friend of mine, working as an executive-level officer with a pan-India finance firm, was recently transferred from Coimbatore to Bengaluru. The management cited below-par performance as the primary reason for this move. However, given his complete unfamiliarity with Kannada and the local geography, he faces severe operational handicaps in performing his duties compared to his tenure in Coimbatore. Crucially, there is an explicit written agreement between the employee and the firm restricting any transfer beyond a 50-kilometre radius from his original posting. While such disputes regarding transfer conditions previously invoked provisions like Section 83 of the Industrial Disputes Act, I am uncertain about the exact legal standing of such contractual breaches under the newly enacted Bharatiya labour codes. What specific legal recourse and statutory remedies are available to an affected employee in such a case? Can an employer unilaterally override a written distance restriction clause under the current legal framework?

— Kalidas, T Nagar

The transfer of an executive of an all-India finance firm cannot be challenged, notwithstanding a restriction on transfer provided in the appointment order, as such a person is covered neither by the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 nor under the latest Industrial Relations Act 2020.

The TN Shops and Establishments Act 1947 protects executives against their illegal termination only. Perhaps transfer outside the state was intended only to deprive him of legal cover, because such protection is available only under the TN law and not in any other state.

Such transfer contrary to the contract of appointment can be challenged only in a civil court. However, you will not get a stay of its effect, and any compensation for breach of contract will only be a pittance — hardly worth wasting your time and energy in a civil court.