A dispute over access to Kerala vigilance records has intensified after the BJP alleged that the state government is shielding people facing corruption cases by keeping T1 and T2 category files outside the scope of the Right to Information Act. The allegation has not been independently verified from the order or an official government response supplied with the report.
Speaking at a news conference, BJP state vice-president Shone George said an order removing T1 and T2 vigilance files from RTI coverage could restrict access to information about investigations involving the chief minister, ministers, political figures and senior officials. The Times of India report did not reproduce the order or provide its date, issuing authority or legal reasoning.
George alleged that the exemption could prevent complainants and members of the public from obtaining details of vigilance probes, including the investigation involving former chief minister Pinarayi Vijayan. His comments represent the BJP’s political position and should not be treated as an established finding that any individual has been shielded from investigation.
The issue centres on how vigilance files are classified during an investigation. According to the report, the vigilance director decides whether a file falls into the T1 or T2 category. George argued that this discretion could allow cases under investigation to be kept beyond the reach of RTI applicants. The report does not establish how the classification process operates in law, whether every file in those categories is exempt, or whether exemptions can be challenged through the RTI system.
The Right to Information framework permits restrictions in specific circumstances, including where disclosure could affect an investigation or the prosecution of an offence. Whether a particular record can be withheld depends on the legal provision invoked, the contents of the record and the authority’s reasons for denying access. None of those details are available in the supplied material, making the text of the alleged order central to assessing the dispute.
George also questioned whether the order was issued as vigilance proceedings began to protect Vijayan, ministers and other political figures. That is an allegation by the BJP, and the supplied report does not provide documentary evidence linking the timing of the order to any individual investigation. It also does not include a response from the Kerala government, the vigilance directorate, the state information commission or any person named in connection with the alleged cases.
The dispute has a wider governance dimension because RTI access is one of the mechanisms through which complainants and citizens can monitor the progress of public corruption investigations. If records are withheld, applicants may have to rely on appeal procedures or seek clarification from oversight bodies. At the same time, investigation-related information may be restricted where disclosure could compromise evidence, reveal sensitive methods or affect proceedings. Establishing which of these considerations applies requires access to the official exemption order and the reasons recorded for individual decisions.
George said the BJP would intervene through legal and political channels and organise protests in the coming days. He referred to the government’s position in proceedings before a single bench and a division bench, but the supplied report does not identify the cases, courts, orders or arguments involved. Those documents would be necessary to determine whether the RTI dispute is connected to ongoing litigation and what questions the courts are considering.
The immediate unanswered questions are whether the alleged order exists in the form described, which legal provisions it invokes, whether T1 and T2 files are categorically excluded or assessed case by case, and what remedies are available to applicants denied access. The Kerala government and the vigilance authorities have not responded in the supplied report. Verification of the order, the relevant court proceedings and an official response is required before the allegations can be established beyond the BJP’s account.
