🚨 Justice Interrupted: When the Network Fails the Grievance

The Ordeal of a Petitioner and the Question of Police Accountability

Sadhana Tiwari recently filed a public grievance that the Uttar Pradesh Human Rights Commission (UPHRC) initially directed, vividly illustrating the concept of “Justice Interrupted” in the pursuit of justice, particularly in cases involving human rights and property disputes. This situation highlights troubling concerns about transparency, due process, and accountability within the police and government grievance redressal mechanisms.

---

🏛️ The UPHRC Directive: A Clear Mandate

The matter originated from a complaint filed with the UPHRC (Diary No 3613/IN/2024). The Commission’s order was clear. It directed the Superintendent of Police, Mirzapur to “look into the matter and do the needful according to law”. The police must also intimate the complainant.

This order is critical. It signifies that a competent human rights body found the allegations serious enough to justify a formal, legally compliant inquiry. The highest district police authority will conduct the inquiry. When a human rights body directs an action, the subordinate investigation must adhere to the highest standards of legality and maintain fairness. The cryptic working style of the Mirzapur police has interrupted justice.

---

🛑 The Core Dispute in matter of Justice Interrupted: Denial of Written Testimony

The grievance raises an immediate and worrisome issue. The subordinate staff of the Circle Officer City allegedly refused to accept the petitioner’s written witness testimony.

• The Petitioner’s Claim: The applicant, Sadhana Tiwari, received a summons for witness testimony. After she responded orally, the authorities asked her to submit the entire inquiry in her own handwriting. When she provided a prepared, signed representation outlining the factual position, the staff allegedly denied accepting it.
• The Due Process Question: The petitioner rightly questions:
  1. Why was her signed, written account denied?
  2. Why did the concerned staff not record her oral statement and take her signature afterward? This is a standard procedure in police inquiries to guarantee the integrity and accuracy of the deposition.

In any lawful inquiry, a petitioner or witness has the right to present a clear, factual, and signed statement. When the police staff arbitrarily refuse this document or fail to properly record a statement, they raise serious doubts about their impartiality and professionalism in conducting the inquiry.

---

📉 The Closure and the “Poor” Rating: A Failure of Redressal is only promoting Justice Interrupted

The grievance was ultimately marked as “Case Closed”. The remark was: “रिपोर्ट सादर सेवा मे प्रेषित है। थाना की आख्या सन्तोष जनक है। प्रकरण में सम्बंधित से आख्या प्राप्त कर निस्तारण हेतु प्रेषित है। आख्या संलग्न है। प्रकरण न्यायालय से संबंधित है” (Report respectfully sent for service. The police station’s report is satisfactory. The matter has been sent for disposal after receiving a report from the concerned party. The report is attached. The matter is related to the court).

The petitioner’s subsequent rating of “Poor” and detailed remarks expose a profound dissatisfaction:

• Lack of Transparency and Accountability: The petitioner explicitly states there is no transparency. The accountability in the working of the police personnel is lacking.
• Arbitrary/Inconsistent Report: The report submitted by the Station House Officer (SHO) of Drummond Ganj is characterized as “arbitrary and inconsistent.” It has neglected to deal with the core factual position of the case. This is specifically about the property inheritance and the status of the applicant’s deceased father and grandfather. Justice Interrupted because Circle officer submitted Arbitrary Later.
• Missing Focus: The petitioner argues that the original matter concerns the City Magistrate. This suggests the police investigation is now closed based on a ‘satisfactory’ police station report. It has missed or misdirected the core issue.

The fundamental purpose of a grievance system is not just to close a case. It is to offer substantive and satisfactory redressal. A case closed with a ‘satisfactory’ police report still has issues. The complainant rates it as ‘Poor’ due to factual inaccuracies and procedural flaws. This situation is a clear signal that the underlying problem remains unresolved.

---

💡 Way Ahead for the Petitioner

The current situation calls for escalating the matter beyond the local police.

1. File an Appeal on the Grievance Portal: Use any available appeal mechanism on the Jansunwai/Grievance portal. Specifically discuss the lack of due process. This includes the denial of written testimony. Also tackle the inaccurate/arbitrary nature of the Station House Officer’s report. To control such activities of the police, due to which Justice Interrupted, An appeal made before UPHRC.
2. Contact the Superior Authority: Write directly to Shri Arvind Mohan. He is the Joint Secretary at the Chief Minister Secretariat and is the officer concerned with the grievance. Attach the detailed ‘Rating Remarks’ and reiterate the core issue of the staff’s refusal to accept the written submission.
3. Approach UPHRC for Compliance: Since the entire matter stems from a UPHRC direction, the petitioner can approach the UPHRC again. The petitioner can file a compliance petition. Alternatively, they can file a fresh complaint. This complaint should detail the failure of the Superintendent of Police to guarantee a fair and legally compliant investigation. This should be in response to their starting direction. Justice Interrupted and the Applicant again took shelter in the UPHRC Against the arbitrary order of circle officer.

The petitioner has a right to be heard and to have their evidence duly recorded and considered. The procedural lapses alleged here demand an immediate review by a higher, impartial authority to restore faith in the system.

Stop harassing women and girls in regime of Yogi Adityanath by police to suppress voices