Andhra Pradesh Information Commission bars RTI activist for ‘misuse’, orders record seizure

In a sweeping order, the Andhra Pradesh Information Commission (APIC) has prohibited Tirupati-based RTI activist and advocate Perumal Jayachandra Reddy from submitting purposes, appeals and complaints beneath the Proper to Information (RTI) Act, 2005, citing repeated misuse of the transparency regulation, vexatious litigation and severe allegations of economic exploitation of knowledge seekers.

Delivering a 20-page frequent order on Friday (June 19, 2026), Chief Information Commissioner Vajja Srinivasa Rao dismissed 39 second appeals and complaints filed by Mr. Jayachandra Reddy, who represented the Authorized Assist Welfare Society (LAWS), holding that the RTI Act confers the fitting to hunt info solely on particular person residents and never on authorized entities similar to societies or associations.

The Commission additionally directed the District Collector of Tirupati to instantly seize information allegedly maintained by Mr. Jayachandra Reddy regarding complainants V. Lalitha Devi, B. Chandraiah and different members of the general public, citing bigger public curiosity.

The order additional stated all pending RTI purposes, first appeals and second appeals filed by Mr. Jayachandra Reddy would stand closed, and directed the Commission’s registry to flow into the order to all authorities departments, district collectors, superintendents of police, public info officers and appellate authorities throughout Andhra Pradesh.

The Commission stated Mr. Jayachandra Reddy had filed RTI purposes beneath the banner of the Authorized Assist Welfare Society, represented by its president and advocate, making the purposes legally untenable. Referring to Part 3 of the RTI Act, the Commission stated solely a “citizen” can search info, whereas a society or every other juristic particular person can not declare that standing.

The order cited a number of judgments of the Supreme Court docket, Excessive Courts and the Central Information Commission, to indicate the excellence between a authorized particular person and a citizen.

The Commission additional stated the appellant had repeatedly invoked the “life and liberty” provision beneath Part 7(1) of the RTI Act to hunt info inside 48 hours with out demonstrating any imminent risk to life or private liberty.

In line with the order, public authorities complained that Mr. Jayachandra Reddy had filed quite a few RTI purposes looking for intensive information, typically regarding private grievances fairly than issues of bigger public curiosity. Officers additionally alleged that he repeatedly submitted comparable purposes, appeals and complaints regardless of having already acquired responses.

The Commission described a number of purposes as speculative, repetitive and aimed toward pressuring public authorities. It additionally took exception to language in some appeals warning officers of penalties and disciplinary motion for non-compliance, terming such statements as intimidating.

The order referred to 2 complaints acquired towards Mr. Jayachandra Reddy. In a single case, a lady alleged that he collected ₹1 crore for acquiring property-related information via RTI however failed to supply the paperwork or return the cash. In one other criticism, a person alleged that Mr. Jayachandra Reddy collected ₹20,000 to file an RTI software however didn’t submit it.

Calling these allegations severe, the Commission stated the RTI Act couldn’t be allowed to change into a software for harassment, personal litigation or monetary acquire. It held that repetitive purposes may represent legitimate grounds for refusal and cautioned public authorities towards being burdened with frivolous and voluminous requests.

“Entertaining such appeals may now not serve the targets of the RTI Act,” the Commission stated whereas dismissing all 39 circumstances.