Cuttack, Aug. 19: Social activists have sought intervention of the governor and Orissa High Court in BJD government's decision to keep vigilance wing out of the purview of Right to Information (RTI) Act.

The state information and public relations department had issued a notification on August 11 regarding this.

It said: "In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section 4 of section 24 of the Right to Information Act, 2005, the state government do hereby specify that nothing, contained in the said act, shall apply to the general administration (vigilance) department and its organisation."

The notification had evoked criticism from Opposition parties. And now, Odia Yuva Mancha president Rohan Mohanty has sought intervention of governor S.C. Jamir for its withdrawal.

Besides, a civil society Global Human Rights Communication's executive director Subash Mohapatra has filed a petition in the high court seeking quashing of the notification.

Mohapatra filed the petition in the high court on Wednesday alleging that keeping vigilance out of the RTI purview amounts to contravention of the constitution. Mohanty had, in his petition to the governor on Tuesday, alleged that it amounted to an arbitrary act beyond the state government's legal power or authority.

The dispute centred on the contention that the notification was against the spirit of the RTI Act. The mancha president alleged that the notification had "half-quoted or misquoted" the provisions of the act.

According to section 24 (4) of the RTI, intelligence and security organisations will be outside the act's ambit. Allegations of corruption and human rights violation will not be excluded under this section.

"Thus as an anti-corruption organisation, the state vigilance comes under the purview of RTI Act, 2005, in respect of both suo motu disclosures and disclosures in response to applications made by members of the public," Mohanty said in his petition to the governor. Mohapatra echoed the same in his petition filed in the court, while challenging its constitutional validity.

The mancha sought direction to the state government to put in place an adequate and effective mechanism within the vigilance organisation for making suo motu disclosures, responding to the RTI applications from the public and declaring names of public information officers (PIOs) and first appellate officers in headquarters of the Vigilance Directorate in Cuttack and each of its local branches.

The state government had justified the vigilance's exclusion from the RTI ambit on the ground that it compromised the confidentiality in corruption cases by exposing details of the personal assets of persons, who were under investigation.