Andhra Pradesh Information Commission bars RTI activist for 'misuse', orders record seizure
The Andhra Pradesh Information Commission (APIC) has barred Tirupati-based RTI activist and advocate Perumal Jayachandra Reddy from filing applications, appeals, and complaints under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005. In a 20-page order issued on June 19, 2026, Chief Information Commissioner Vajja Srinivasa Rao dismissed 39 second appeals and complaints filed by Mr. Reddy, who represented the Legal Aid Welfare Society (LAWS). The Commission held that the RTI Act confers the right to seek information only on individual citizens, not on legal entities such as societies or associations.
The Commission also directed the District Collector of Tirupati to immediately seize records allegedly maintained by Mr. Reddy relating to complainants V. Lalitha Devi, B. Chandraiah, and other members of the public, citing larger public interest. The order further stated that all pending RTI applications, first appeals, and second appeals filed by Mr. Reddy would stand closed. The Commission's registry was directed to circulate the order to all government departments, district collectors, superintendents of police, public information officers, and appellate authorities across Andhra Pradesh.
The Commission noted that Mr. Reddy had filed RTI applications under the banner of the Legal Aid Welfare Society, represented by its president and advocate, making the applications legally untenable. Referring to Section 3 of the RTI Act, the Commission said only a 'citizen' can seek information, while a society or any other juristic person cannot claim that status. The order cited several judgments of the Supreme Court, High Courts, and the Central Information Commission to illustrate the distinction between a legal person and a citizen.
The Commission further stated that Mr. Reddy had repeatedly invoked the 'life and liberty' provision under Section 7(1) of the RTI Act to seek information within 48 hours without demonstrating any imminent threat to life or personal liberty. According to the order, public authorities complained that Mr. Reddy had filed numerous RTI applications seeking extensive records, often concerning personal grievances rather than matters of larger public interest. Officials also alleged that he repeatedly submitted similar applications, appeals, and complaints despite having already received responses.
The Commission described several applications as speculative, repetitive, and aimed at pressuring public authorities. It also took exception to language in some appeals warning officials of penalties and disciplinary action for non-compliance, terming such statements as intimidating. The order referred to two complaints against Mr. Reddy. In one case, a woman alleged that he collected ₹1 crore for obtaining property-related records through RTI but failed to provide the documents or return the money. In another complaint, a man alleged that Mr. Reddy collected ₹20,000 to file an RTI application but did not submit it.
Calling these allegations serious, the Commission said the RTI Act could not be allowed to become a tool for harassment, private litigation, or financial gain. It held that repetitive applications could constitute valid grounds for refusal and cautioned public authorities against being burdened with frivolous and voluminous requests. 'Entertaining such appeals could no longer serve the objectives of the RTI Act,' the Commission said while dismissing all 39 cases.
