Preliminary Findings
Report on the Functioning of
Andhra Pradesh Information
Commission
By
United Forum for RTI Campaign - Andhra Pradesh & LibTech India
Study Coordinators:
Chakradhar Buddha & Kagga Venkata Krishna
Study Team Members :
Anand A, Akshit Arora, Kruti Biren Shah, K Vamsi Bhushan & Ranadheer Malla
Email: a p.ufrti@gmail.com Mobile: 92465 22344
16th April, 2021
Introduction
The state and central I nformation commissions are constituted under the Right To I nformation
(RTI) Act 2005 to facilitate and safeguard the rights accorded to citizens under the Act.
Government of Andhra Pradesh(AP) has constituted Andhra Pradesh I nformation Commission to
exercise the powers conferred on and to perform the functions assigned to i t under Right to
Information Act, 2005.
Andhra Pradesh I nformation Commission i s a quasi-judicial body that decides the Complaints and
Second Appeals filed under RTI. The j urisdiction of the Commission extends over all Andhra
Pradesh State Public Authorities. Some of the i mportant powers of the I nformation commission
include the power to require public authorities to provide access to i nformation, appoint Public
Information Officers ( PIOs), publish certain categories of i nformation etc.. Section 19(8)(b) of the
RTI Act empowers commissions to “require the public authority to compensate the complainant
for any l oss or other detriment suffered”. Further, under section 19(8) and section 20 of the RTI
Act, they are given powers to i mpose penalties on erring officials, while under Section 20(2),
commissions are empowered to recommend disciplinary action to the appropriate government
against a PIO for “persistent” violation of one or more provisions of the Act. Effective functioning
of i nformation commissions i s crucial for proper i mplementation of the Act and this has been
reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court i n the j udgement W.P.(C) No.-000436 / 2018, “Anjali
Bharadwaj and others VS Union of I ndia and others” delivered on February 15, 2019 as well.
Back Ground:
After the bifurcation of the state i n June 2014, both the states of A.P and Telangana have a
common I nformation Commission functioning till September, 2017 operating from Hyderabad.
With the constitution of Telangana i nformation commission i n September 2017, AP has l eft with no
information commission.
As per Schedule 10, of the Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2014, a separate I nformation
commission was to be constituted for AP but only i n l ate 2018, Andhra Pradesh state i nformation
commission ( SIC) was constituted, that too under the direction from the apex court. Based on the
directions of the Supreme Court, as on today 6 commissioners were appointed - 3 i n October
2018, 1 i n May 2019 and the l ast 2 i n July 2020. The vacant post of Chief i nformation
commissioner has been filled up as recently as July 2020.
Effectively Andhra Pradesh state has functioned without i nformation commission for the l arge
part so far, post state bifurcation. I n this context we want to understand the functioning of the
1
newly formed State I nformation Commission and as a follow up we plan to do a series of studies
to monitor the i mplementation of the RTI Act i n the state of AP.
Objective of the study:
The objective of the current study i s to monitor the functioning of Andhra Pradesh I nformation
commission so that i t will l ead to overall i mprovement i n the performance of the I nformation
commission as a body, commissioners and strengthening the i mplementation of the act.
We made an attempt to analyse the quality of orders passed by the i nformation commissioners,
time taken for the final orders of the second appeal received by the commission, completeness
of the order and i t’s compliance with the RTI act. Additionally, i f the PIO i s found to have acted
against the l aw, whether they were assessed/ taken to task as per the act.
Methodology:
This report findings are based on the analysis of randomly chosen 769 orders of Andhra Pradesh
Information commission for the period of February 2019 to November 2020. We sampled these
769 orders from the SIC orders and made sure that orders by all the i nformation commissioners
are covered i n the study.
Number of cases and disposed
As of January 2021, Andhra Pradesh I nformation Commission received 9,786 appeals and 4,186
complaints of them 7,256 & 2,754 are disposed respectively. 3,962 of all the appeals or
complaints received are pending at the state i nformation commission. Table 1 shows the number
of appeals/ complaints received, disposed and pending along with other details.
Table 1: Number of appeals/ complaints disposed and the Penalty i mposed by the commission
2
S
No
Duration
No of Appeals/ Complaints
Penalty
Imposed
Awarded to
Received Disposed Pending Applicant
1 01.10.2017
To May 2019 5,000 422 4,578
₹ 25,000 ₹ 15,000
2 June 2019 to
May 2020 5,590 5,808 4,507
₹1,98,000 ₹ 26,500
3 June 2020 to
January 2021 3,351 3,780 3,962
₹ 0 ₹ 0
From unconfirmed reports, we got to know that there are about 10,000 cases that are transferred
to the AP SIC, which were parked with Telangana SIC before the formation of AP SIC and only
7000 of these cases are accepted by the AP SIC for unspecified reasons. Note that the
transferred cases are not i ncluded i n the total number of pendings cases i n table 1.
Preliminary Findings:
1. Time Taken to Dispose an Appeal/ Complaint
On average the State I nformation Commission took more than 273 days to dispose of an appeal/
complaint registered with the SIC i .e the number of days between the data of appeal/complaint
received at the SIC to the date of disposal. Of the 769 orders analysed, the maximum number of
days taken by the SIC to dispose of an appeal/ complaint was 866 days and the minimum days i s
about 15 days.
There are 3962 cases ( 2530 appeals + 1432 complaints) pending at the SIC as of January, 2021.
On average SIC disposed of a l ittle more than 519 cases i n the l ast six months at this rate i t will
take more than 7 and a half months to dispose of the pending cases and i f we i nclude the
transferred cases from Telangana SIC i t will take more than 21 months.
People approach the SIC as they didn’t receive the requested i nformation ( or on time), i f the SIC
itself takes months to dispose of the appeals/ complaints received the objective of transparency
law i s defeated.
2. Very Few Female Appellants/Complainants:
Of the disposed orders analysed for the study i t i s found that only 7% of the
appellants/complainants are female and the remaining 93% are from male candidates. From
these numbers i t’s evident this transparency l egislation i s not being used by the female
population at all. While the reasons for the same are not clear, i t helps to conduct awareness
activities and campaigns to encourage women to use the Right to I nformation Act.
3. Reasons for Appeals/ Complaints:
It i s found that 80% of the appeals/ complaints filed before at the i nformation commission are due
to the fact that the concerned PIO did not respond to the application at all. 15% of the appeal/
complaints are filed as the PIO furnished partial i nformation. The remaining 5% i nclude cases of
misleading/ i ncorrect i nformation from PIO, erroneous transfer of the application under Section 6
(3) or the PIO refused to furnish the i nformation sought.
3
4 Total 13,972 10,010 3,962 ₹ 2,23,000 ₹ 41,500
Under Section 7(8) of RTI Act, i n case of rejecting the application, the Public I nformation officer
shall communicate the following to the applicant
(i) the reasons for such rejection;
(ii) the period within which an appeal against such rejection may be preferred; and
(iii) the particulars of the appellate authority.
I n case of non response by PIO i n the stipulated time, the application i s deemed to be rejected.
But i t i s evident that this section i s being violated by the majority of the PIOs.
4. Information Sought - Voluntary Disclosure of Information:
Information sought i n 65% of the applications comes under Proactive Disclosure of i nformation
i.e., Section 4(2) of the RTI Act. I t mandates every public authority to provide as much i nformation
suo moto to the public at regular i ntervals through various means of communications, i ncluding
the I nternet, so that the public need not resort to the use of RTI Act.
If the i nformation was voluntarily disclosed to the public, the need to apply for i nformation under
RTI would not have been there. Thereby saving resources for all the parties i nvolved.
5. Non speaking orders - a concern:
In the orders of 68% of the disposed cases, the SIC did not quote relevant sections and 37% of
the orders did not have the details of i nformation sought by the appellant. I t deprives all the
involved parties of the fundamental right to know the basis of j udgement, which plays a crucial
role when a j udgement goes to l egal scrutiny at various l evels.
In several cases where i nformation was denied by the commission, i t was found that the orders
were not adequately reasoned and could be termed to be non-speaking orders. Several such
orders merely summarise the contention of the i nformation seeker and the denial by the PIO and
conclude by stating that i ntervention of the Commission was not required, without providing valid
reasons under the act.
The Supreme Court, i n numerous orders, has cautioned against the tendency of adjudicators to
give cryptic, unreasoned orders. I n 2012, the SC i n Manohar s/o Manikrao Anchule vs. State of
Maharashtra ( Civil Appeal No. 9095 of 2012), categorically, and i n great detail, l aid down that
judicial, quasi-judicial, and even administrative orders must contain detailed reasoning for their
decisions.
The phenomenon of I Cs not passing speaking orders i s problematic for several reasons,
including the public at l arge, having no way of finding out the rationale for the decisions of I Cs. I t
4
is a violation of peoples’ right to i nformation and goes against the fundamental principles of
transparency. Such non-speaking orders stand very l ittle chance for l egal & effective public
scrutiny. I t also compromises the accountability of the i nstitution of i nformation commissions and
the performance of i nformation commissioners. Finally, deficient orders have l ittle value i n terms
of furthering the cause of transparency outside the scope of the l imited order.
6. Penalty Imposition:
In 42% of the analysed orders, the commissions observed that the PIO has violated the act. The
information commission should have i mposed a penalty as per the Section 20 of the RTI Act on
all these cases or at l east i nitiate the process of penalty i mposition. However, notices were i ssued
in 28% of the cases only and the penalty was not i mposed i n 97% of the cases, where the
commission has observed violations.
The RTI Act empowers the I nformation Commissioners to i mpose penalties of upto Rs. 25,000 on
PIOs for violating the provisions of the RTI Act. Section 20 of the RTI Act defines the violations of
the l aw for which PIOs must be penalised.
The penalty acts as a deterrent for those who fail to act as the act requires. I t sends the message
that the violators can get away without any penalty as no penalty was i mposed i n the majority of
the cases. By not i mposing a penalty, i n the i mposable cases the i nformation commission i s not
fulfilling i ts responsibility, this sends the wrong message to the public.
7. More than one hearing:
More than one hearing happened at the SIC i n 2% of the disposed appeals/ complaints. This not
only delays the process of j ustice delivery to the appellant but also consumes a significant
amount of time and money for all the parties i nvolved i n the hearing process. I t i s i mportant to
note that i t i s the appellant that suffers the most with the amount of travel i nvolved to appear i n
front the SIC and the associated costs with the same along with Justice delayed i s j ustice denied.
It i s i mportant to note that there i s no i nformation available on the status of such cases where the
commission has i ssued i nterim orders earlier. We don’t know how many more hearings have
happened on such cases or i f any hearings have happened at all.
8. Voluntary disclosure of i nformation - State Information
Commission’s Website:
It i s promising that the SIC has been regularly publishing the monthly status reports, which
includes the number of appeals/ complaints received, disposed of and pending by the end of the
given month. Although the order copies for the disposed cases by all the commissioners, notices
5
issued by all of them are not available. Only the notices i ssued by the chief i nformation
commissioner are available on the website.
However, the i nformation on the number of non-compliance petitions and the filing process i s not
available on the i nformation commission’s website. We got to know that the commission started
recognizing non-compliance petitions as a separate category and they are numbered specially
which i s commendable.
9. Very few details of the commissioners appointment:
On the i nformation commission’s website, very few details pertaining to the appointment of the
commissioners are available and this i s against the spirit of the i nstitution, whose objective i s to
foresee the i mplementation of the transparency l egislation. I n the unbifurcated state of Andhra
Pradesh, appointment details of the commissioners used to be available but the current website
doesn’t have these details.
Currently the i nformation commission’s website has CVs of few commissioners with the CV of
chief i nformation commissioner notably missing. The website should have all the documents
including the minutes of the high power committee designated for the appointment of the
commissioners, CVs of the commissioners and details of all the candidates applied for the post of
CVs.
10.No annual reports:
After the bifurcation of the state Andhra Pradesh I nformation Commission and the formation of
State I nformation Commission, SIC didn’t release a single annual report yet.
Under Section 25(1) of the RTI Act, 2005 the State I nformation Commission at the end of each
year shall prepare a report on the i mplementation of the provisions of this Act. I t consists of the
consolidated statement on the applications received and disposed of by various departments
(including the SIC ) under the RTI Act. The report prepared shall be forwarded to the Government
which i n turn will place i t before the Andhra Pradesh State Legislative Assembly.
Conclusion:
It i s really disheartening to see the below par performance of the i nformation commissioners i n
an i nstitution that i s responsible for upholding transparency. By not publishing the annual reports,
the i nformation commission i s abdicating i ts moral and l egal responsibility and accountability
towards people, l egislature.
6
SIC should set an example to all public i nformation officers i n the state by being quick i n
disposing the appeals/complaints, follow supreme court guidelines for quasi j udicial orders i n
their orders and being transparent i n disclosure of details about the commissioners etc..
However, we see things changing for the better, post appointment of the chief i nformation
commission and the publication of monthly reports with the number of appeals/complaints
received, cleared, pending etc. i s a testimony to this. We hope RTI activists, Civil Society Groups,
and the Government use this report to i nitiate discussions on the functioning of SIC and RTI
implementation at l arge i n the state.
About Us:
United Forum for RTI Campaign - Andhra Pradesh
United Forum for RTI Campaign AP i s a confederation of around 70 civil society organizations.
The forum was started i n 2007. Since then the Forum i s actively i nvolved i n advocacy i ssues,
conducting workshops, training volunteers, organizing RTI awareness campaigns etc.
To l earn more about our work read our blog at h ttp://ufrti.blogspot.com/
LibTech India
LibTech I ndia i s a team of engineers, social workers and social scientists who are i nterested i n
improving public service delivery i n I ndia. They are i nspired by I ndia’s Right to I nformation
movement and believe that transparency can go a l ong way i n reducing corruption and i mproving
accountability. They work with several state governments and CSOs to i mprove transparency and
accountability i n public service delivery through action research.
To l earn more about their work visit their website at h ttps://libtech.in
We would l ike to thank Satark Nagrik Sangathan for their reports on I nformation Commissions,
which i nspired us to take up this study.
7
Labels: AP, APIC, CIC, IC, RTI, UFRTI
