INTRODUCTION
AUTHORITY TOLD TO PUBLISH NAMES OF SUCH OFFICERS
• Police personnel in the State Police Department who are suspected of corruption, the specific allegation levelled against them, and the position they held.
• State Police Department officers suspected of perpetrating crimes against women, including their names, ranks, positions held, and complaints filed against them.
CONCLUSION
According to Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan's bench, the information authority cannot keep the identities of officers who have been found guilty or dismissed from duty on charges of corruption or human rights violations hidden from the public. The police department's information authority, on the other hand, will not be required to provide the names of officers who have been charged with crimes as a result of the investigation but have yet to be convicted guilty in a court of law.
The judgement underscored the importance of the information authority remembering that the exclusions cannot be read too narrowly when dealing with information that does not fall under Section 4(1)(b) and (c) of the Act. Rather, the Court decided that the clause should be interpreted practically to preserve the public interest.
This is a tremendous step forward, and all states should follow suit so that the highest standards are established in the public domain, even among police officers. There can't possible be an excuse for not doing so!


