State Chief Information Commissioner R. Mahaboob Basha. |Picture source: File Photo
In a strongly worded executive order of May 9, 2025, the State Chief Information Commissioner (SCIC) R. Mahaboob Basha restricted V. Anjaneyulu of IRTS, thus serving as secretary of Andhra Pradesh Information Commission (APIC) (all additional costs), citing serious procedural infringement.
As friction between the state government and the APIC escalated, Mr. Basha asserted that the appointment of Chief Secretary K. Vijayanand “not consulting APIC” violated the Right to Information Act of 2005, and Ms. 122 on 6 September 2017.
He stressed that under Section 16(6) of the RTI Act, the state government must provide officials and staff to the SCIC and the State Information Commissioner to ensure effective operation and in a way that protects the independence and autonomy of the Commission.
“This is the first time in the history of the APIC of the General Administration (GAD) office of the Government has initiated the appointment process for the secretary position without consulting the APIC,” Mr. Basha said in the order.
“There was subsequently approved by the government and APIC has been recruiting its staff through SCIC,” he said.
The SCIC mentioned that the GAD directed the head of the department to independently nominate candidates for the position, a move called “a violation of long-term conventions and administrative norms.”
Mr Basha said that although the office was “shocked” by the development, he initially avoided opposition and hoped that Gad would follow the early practices through the advisory committee.
He criticized the appointment of Mr. Anjaneyulu, who has served as the acting director of the Insurance Medical Services Commissioner for his apparent violation of the 2017 GO, which stipulates that the APIC secretary should be appointed only by representatives or contracts.
“This action does not give the government the right to allocate all additional fees to officers who have already served elsewhere,” Basha said.
He further stated that Mr. Anjani Uru visited the APIC office and claimed to have served as secretary. However, after proposing to submit a formal joining report and awaiting permission from SCIC, he left the process not to complete. SCIC further claimed that Mr. Anjaneyulu had since been unauthorized to enter the committee’s premises, condemning staff and issuing directives in violation of the procedures.
Barsha asserted that “an official cannot serve as the APIC secretary without the approval of the SCIC.” He added: “The APIC cannot blindly allow any official deployed by the government to bear the charges and unless it is satisfied with his or her applicability, the official serves in autonomous and quasi-judicial institutions.”
Invoking Section 15(4) of the RTI Act, Mr. Basha emphasized the Commission’s limitations on liability to undermine the power and dignity of the SCIC Office.
He also advised the state government to avoid deputy officials, saying: “He didn’t know how to act in an autonomous and independent quasi-judicial authority like the APIC.”
The government has not responded to development. Meanwhile, officials at all levels of the government pointed out that SCIC cannot deny appointing officials because the government has the task of staff operating for the office.
publishing – May 10, 2025 at 08:32 pm ist
