Cuttack, Dec. 24: Orissa High Court has admitted a second PIL seeking intervention against the state government's decision to keep the vigilance wing, the nodal agency that probes all government cases of corruption, out of the purview of the Right to Information (RTI) Act.

The court has sought from the state government a reply justifying the validity of the notification.

The state information and public relations department had issued a notification on August 11, which said: "In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section 4 of section 24 of the Right to Information Act, 2005, the state government does hereby specify that nothing contained in the said Act shall apply to the general administration (vigilance) department and its organisation."

A controversy had started with Opposition leader Narasingha Mishra describing the move as an attempt to shield corrupt people and set up a "self-protection mechanism".

"The government is scared that its misdeeds will be exposed through the RTI and that's why it has taken such an action," Mishra said.

Convener of Odisha RTI Abhijan Pradip Pradhan and lawyer Sudhansu Nanda filed the PIL questioning the legality of the notification. The petition came up on Thursday. After a preliminary hearing, the division bench of Chief Justice Vineet Saran and Justice B.R. Sarangi posted the matter for hearing after three weeks along with the response of the state government. The court has issued notices to the secretary of information and public relations department to file a reply by then.

The dispute had first reached the high court with Subash Mohapatra, an official of Global Human Rights Communication, filing a petition in the high court seeking quashing of the notification.

The court had on October 3 issued notices to the state government to file a reply. The case has since been pending without hearing. Odia Yuva Mancha president Rohan Mohanty had also sought intervention of governor S.C. Jamir for withdrawal of the notification.

The dispute raised by the petitions centres round the contention that the notification was allegedly against the spirit of the RTI Act and had "half-quoted or misquoted" the provisions of the RTI Act.

According to section 24 (4) of the RTI, intelligence and security organisations will be outside the purview of the Act. 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, the petitions further contend.