Andhra Pradesh Information Commission dismisses 160 RTI cases, raps appellant over misuse

Account subscription benefits alongside Premium Stories, Editorials, Opinions and more. Unlock these with Subscription

The View From India Looking at World Affairs from the Indian perspective.

First Day First Show News and reviews from the world of cinema and streaming.

Today's Cache Your download of the top 5 technology stories of the day.

Data Point Decoding the headlines with facts, figures, and numbers

Health Matters Ramya Kannan writes to you on getting to good health, and staying there

The Hindu On Books Books of the week, reviews, excerpts, new titles and features.

Image used for representation purpose only. | Photo Credit: Special Arrangement

The Andhra Pradesh Information Commission has dismissed 160 second appeals and complaints filed by Bapatla-based RTI activist Naidu Nagarjuna Reddy, holding that he had misused the Right to Information (RTI) Act by repeatedly filing vexatious and grievance-oriented applications. The common order was issued by Chief Information Commissioner Vajja Srinivasa Rao on June 30, 2026.

The Andhra Pradesh Information Commission has passed this common order related to the Second Appeal No. 3328 of 2025.

The Commission observed that the appellant had filed thousands of RTI applications, numerous first appeals and more than 400 second appeals, many of them relating to his personal grievances and criminal cases. It noted that information was often sought in repetitive applications and that the RTI mechanism was being used as a litigation tool rather than to promote transparency and accountability.

During the hearings, the appellant acknowledged that he had never filed any public interest litigation or corruption complaint using information obtained through RTI. The Commission also recorded submissions by public authorities alleging that the appellant had harassed officials through repeated applications. Affidavits placed before the Commission referred to his criminal background and pending cases, though these were reproduced as submissions made by the respondents.

Relying on judgments of the Supreme Court, various High Courts and the Central Information Commission, the order reiterated that the RTI Act is intended to provide access to existing records and is not a forum for grievance redressal or speculative queries. It warned that indiscriminate and repetitive applications divert public resources and hamper the functioning of public authorities.

Concluding that the appellant had abused the RTI process, the Commission dismissed all 160 matters, reprimanded him and directed that repeated applications, appeals