He Asked How They Decided To Prosecute Him. The Court Said He May Know.
A town inspector caught in a trap case asked, under the Right to Information Act, how the decision to sanction his prosecution had been made. The State refused. The Supreme Court has let the High Court's direction to disclose stand.
The appeal was dismissed, leaving in place the High Court's finding that the investigation in the criminal proceedings was complete and that the applicant could not therefore be denied the information by relying on Section 8(1)(h) of the Right to Information Act. The Court also held that the absence of a prayer seeking a declaration of invalidity of a piece of subordinate legislation does not prevent a court from testing its validity, provided the authority concerned is given an opportunity to justify it.
- Section 8(1)(h) protects an ongoing investigation, not the file forever. Once the investigation is complete the exemption loses its footing.
- The decision-making process behind a sanction is information the accused may seek.
- A court can test subordinate legislation unprompted, so long as the authority gets a hearing on validity.
- The notification survives in part — the Court clarified it had not examined its application to the State Bureau of Investigation of Economic Offences, and it continues to operate to that extent.
- Court
- Supreme Court of India
- Bench
- Justice Atul S. Chandurkar, Justice J.K. MAHESHWARI
- Citation
- 2026 INSC 644
- Reported
- [2026] 7 S.C.R. 113
- Case
- CRIMINAL APPEAL/3743/2024
- Decided
- 14 June 2026
- Outcome
- Appeal dismissed
What happened
The first respondent, a Town Inspector, was implicated by the Special Police Establishment in a trap case. An FIR was registered and the State Government granted sanction for his prosecution.
He applied under the Right to Information Act for information about the decision-making process in the grant of that sanction. The request was rejected, and the State Information Commission dismissed his appeal, holding he was not entitled to it in view of Section 8(1)(h).
Why the information must be given
The High Court found that the investigation in the criminal proceedings was complete, and that with the investigation over the applicant could not be denied the information by invoking Section 8(1)(h). It directed the Special Police Establishment to supply what he had asked for.
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal against that direction. It also addressed a procedural objection, holding that the absence of a prayer seeking a declaration that a piece of subordinate legislation is invalid does not by itself deter a court from testing its validity — though the concerned authority must first be given an opportunity to justify it.
The Court clarified the limits of what it had decided: it had not examined the notification's application to the State Bureau of Investigation of Economic Offences, and to that extent the notification continues to operate.
Who argued it
Appearances as recorded in the judgment of the Court.
Frequently asked
Can an accused person get the file behind the sanction to prosecute him?
Where the investigation is complete, Section 8(1)(h) does not bar it. The High Court's direction to supply the information was upheld.
Does Section 8(1)(h) protect a file permanently?
No. It protects information that would impede an investigation or prosecution; once the investigation is over that basis falls away.
Seeking a sanction file under the RTI Act
- Establish that the investigation is complete before you apply; that is what removes the Section 8(1)(h) footing.
- Ask for the decision-making process, not merely the sanction order — that is what was sought and allowed here.
- Expect the exemption to be pleaded anyway, and be ready to show the chargesheet or closure that ends the investigation.
- If a notification stands in your way, remember a court may test its validity even without a specific prayer, provided the authority is heard.
Source. Supreme Court of India, 2026 INSC 644, [2026] 7 S.C.R. 113, CRIMINAL APPEAL/3743/2024, decided 14 June 2026 by Justice Atul S. Chandurkar, Justice J.K. MAHESHWARI. This explainer is written from the judgment text as reported.
Claw tracks Supreme Court of India and 24 other High Courts, reads every order handed back, and surfaces the directions that carry a deadline. clawlaw.in