The Tamil Nadu Police has declined to provide data on extrajudicial killings sought through a Right to Information (RTI) application filed by The News Minute (TNM), stating that compiling the information would affect routine police work. The request was submitted to the office of the Director General of Police (DGP) on July 27 following a series of custodial deaths and alleged extrajudicial killings reported across the state in recent months.
TNM received the response on 11 November 2025, in which the DGP’s office said that details on extrajudicial killings from 1990 to March 2025 were not available at the headquarters. The reply stated that retrieving the information from all district and city police units would place a significant administrative burden on the department.
According to the written communication, “collecting and compiling such data would divert the regular work of this department and adversely affect day-to-day functioning,” and therefore the information could not be provided.
Supreme Court Judgment Cited
The police also cited a Supreme Court judgment in CBSE vs Aditya Bandhopadhyaya, in which the court had cautioned against RTI requests that could divert substantial staff time from regular duties. The 2011 judgment, delivered by Justices RV Raveendran and AK Patnaik, noted that public authorities should not be placed in situations where administrative functioning is undermined by excessive information-gathering obligations.
The case itself involved a student seeking evaluated answer sheets from CBSE, with the court recognising the student’s right to inspect them while also emphasising the need for reasonable limits on RTI demands.
RTI Activists Raise Concerns
RTI activist SP Thiyagarajan criticised the police response, calling it an indication of inadequate transparency. He said the requested information was something the police could make public and that, if the data was not available at the headquarters, the DGP’s office should have forwarded the RTI application to the relevant district police units.
He added that Section 4(1)(b) of the RTI Act mandates proactive disclosure of several categories of public information, which he said has not been fully implemented even two decades after the enactment of the law.
Human Rights Group Alleges Attempt to Avoid Scrutiny
Aseervatham, a human rights activist with People’s Watch, alleged that the refusal to provide data may be aimed at preventing public scrutiny of police actions. He claimed that the DGP’s office likely has the information but is unwilling to release it, arguing that disclosure could prompt legal challenges or calls for investigations.
He stated that the refusal “was in an effort to prevent scrutiny” and that petitioners could use the data to seek judicial intervention.
(Source: The News Minute)
Subscribe to our channels on WhatsApp, Telegram, Instagram and YouTube to get the best stories of the day delivered to you personally.
