Telangana High Court Questions Low RTI Portal Usage Amidst Pending Transparency Law Student Petition
The has directed its attention toward the systemic underutilization of the state’s digital infrastructure for transparency. The Bench, comprising Justice PSK and Justice NNR, is currently hearing a () filed by a law student, Banappagari Vinay Reddy, concerning the efficacy of the Telangana RTI Online Portal.
A Digital Portal in Search of Users
Data retrieved through various (RTI) channels paints a concerning picture of digital governance in the state. While an impressive 3,323 public authorities have been onboarded onto the state’s online portal, official figures reveal that only 17 authorities are actively utilizing the system for the disposal of RTI applications.
Since its inception, the portal has processed 17,865 applications, yet only 377—a mere 2.1 percent—have been effectively disposed of. Further, the statistics indicate that of the 2,502 first appeals filed via the digital platform, not a single one has reached a resolution. This lack of compliance leaves 99.48 percent of onboarded authorities effectively absent from the digital workflow, forcing citizens to resort to traditional, time-consuming methods.
Legal Mandates and Accessibility Concerns
The petition argues that the failure to operationalize these digital services violates the principles of transparency and administrative efficiency. The petitioner highlights two significant judicial benchmarks: the ’s directions in , which mandated hybrid hearings at all State Information Commissions by , and the directive in regarding the operationalization of RTI portals nationwide.
Currently, the absence of functional hybrid hearings at the forces applicants from remote districts, such as Adilabad and Khammam, to travel physically to Hyderabad for legal proceedings, creating significant barriers to access.
Courtroom Developments and Future Outlook
During the recent hearing on , the counsel representing the sought additional time to file a formal .
The Court observed:
"We make it clear the second part of
in Clause-(a) of the
would not be within the purview of present P.I.L."
While narrowing the scope of the relief sought, the Bench has kept the matter alive, scheduling the next hearing for . As the proceedings continue, the case remains a critical test of the state’s commitment to digitizing governance and ensuring that the remains a practical, accessible reality for all citizens.