This RTI filing for police accountability follows the UPHRC’s order to Mirzapur police in Mahima Maurya’s FIR case, prompting a closer examination of the actions taken by law enforcement. The Right to Information (RTI) request aims to shed light on the specifics of the investigation, seeking clarity on the procedures and decisions made by the police in response to the FIR. This inquiry is particularly significant as it not only addresses individual claims but also raises larger questions about transparency and the effectiveness of the policing system in Mirzapur. By scrutinizing these details, the RTI intends to hold authorities accountable for their actions and ensure that justice is served. Moving forward, the response to this RTI will determine the next steps, influencing public confidence in the judicial process and police integrity.

Introduction

This RTI filing for police accountability began after the Uttar Pradesh Human Rights Commission (UPHRC) reviewed a complaint from Mahima Maurya. As a result, it ordered the Superintendent of Police, Mirzapur, to look into the matter. Specifically, the order required action within six weeks, in accordance with law, with intimation sent to the complainant. However, the Commission did not comment on the merits of the case. Instead, it simply closed the complaint on this basis, leaving the applicant to pursue accountability through this RTI filing under the Right to Information Act, 2005.

Order details:

Detail	Information
Diary No.	4672/IN/2024
Case/File No.	14054/24/55/2024
Victim Name	Mahima Maurya
Registration Date	17/10/2024
Action Date	21/10/2024
Authority	Superintendent of Police, Mirzapur

---

📢 RTI Filing for Police Accountability: Seeking Accountability on the Human Rights Commission Order

We filed this RTI request under the Right to Information Act, 2005. Specifically, it asks the Superintendent of Police (SP) Office, Mirzapur, what action it took following the UPHRC directive. This RTI filing for police accountability is one of several the applicant has pursued to press the SP Office for a transparent, documented response.

Key details of this RTI filing for police accountability

Detail	Information
Applicant Name	Mahima Maurya
Registration Number	SPMZR/R/2024/60208
Date of Filing	14-11-2024
Filed With	Superintendent of Police Office, Mirzapur
Concerned PIO	Om Prakash Singh (ASP Operations)

---

🛑 The core issue behind this RTI filing for police accountability: police inaction and UPHRC intervention

Police at Vindhyachal allegedly acted arbitrarily. Specifically, they failed to register Mahima Maurya’s First Information Report (FIR), and afterward, they overlooked her representation. As a result, she escalated the matter to the Uttar Pradesh Human Rights Commission (UPHRC) — the step that ultimately led to this RTI filing for police accountability.

• UPHRC Case/File No.: 14054/24/55/2024
• Victim Name: Mahima Maurya
• Action Date: 21/10/2024
• UPHRC Directive: The Commission directed the Superintendent of Police, Mirzapur, to look into the matter and act in accordance with law, within six weeks, with intimation to the complainant.

---

❓ Information sought in this RTI filing for police accountability

We filed the RTI application after the UPHRC’s six-week compliance window began. Consequently, it seeks transparency on whether the police office complied. Specifically, it asks for:

1. Staff identification — first, the name and designation of the staff member who received the UPHRC order dated 21/10/2024.
2. Internal processing — next, the notings made on the UPHRC order within the SP Office.
3. Action taken report — then, the report the SP Office prepared in response to the order.
4. Reason for inaction — alternatively, if the office took no action, its stated reason, citing the “Right to Reason.”
5. Current status and staff — finally, the names and designations of staff who processed, or are currently processing, the order.

Overall, under Section 7(1) of the RTI Act, 2005, the applicant is entitled to a response within 30 days — the statutory backbone of any RTI filing for police accountability.

---

The UPHRC’s role: why it matters for police accountability

The UPHRC plays an important, though mainly recommendatory, role when police fail to act — particularly in FIR registration cases involving people from vulnerable groups. At its core, the Commission treats a police refusal to register an FIR for a cognizable offense as a human rights violation. Therefore, this failure denies the victim’s right to justice, and it may also breach Article 21 of the Constitution (Right to Life and Personal Liberty). This is precisely the accountability gap an RTI filing for police accountability is designed to expose.

Here is how the Commission typically approaches such cases:

1. 🛡️ Statutory power: inquiry and recommendation

• Quasi-judicial authority: Like other State Human Rights Commissions, the UPHRC holds powers similar to a civil court. Accordingly, it can inquire into and investigate complaints of human rights violations by a public servant.
• Investigating police inaction: For instance, when someone from a vulnerable group — a woman, a child, a member of an SC/ST community, or an older person — reports that police refused to register their FIR, the UPHRC can take up the complaint directly.
• Calling for reports: Typically, the Commission notifies the relevant authority, such as the Superintendent of Police or the DGP, and requests a detailed report on the complaint and any action taken. As a result, this step pushes senior officers to examine issues the local station ignored.
• Directing investigation: Based on its inquiry, the UPHRC may recommend action to the state government or the police authority concerned. However, it cannot order FIR registration directly, the way a magistrate or court can. Even so, its public recommendation carries real weight for accountability.

2. 🏛️ A focus on vulnerable groups: the accountability angle

The UPHRC has a constitutional and moral duty to handle cases involving vulnerable groups with extra care and sensitivity. Consequently, when police fail to register an FIR for these groups, the Commission treats it as an aggravated human rights violation, because:

• It denies justice. First, the victim cannot even take the first step into the criminal justice system.
• It may reflect bias. Additionally, officers sometimes refuse registration out of bias, or by wrongly recasting the matter as a civil dispute — especially in cases involving property or abuse against marginalized groups.
• Registration is mandatory. Finally, the Supreme Court’s Lalita Kumari judgment requires police to register an FIR whenever the information discloses a cognizable offense. In most situations, no preliminary inquiry is allowed before registration.

3. 🎯 What the UPHRC did in this case, and why it drove this RTI filing

This case shows the Commission’s typical process for non-registration complaints:

1. Perusal and review — first, the Commission examines the allegations to identify a prima facie human rights violation.
2. Direction to a superior officer — next, it directs the Superintendent of Police to “look into the matter and do the needful in accordance with law.” Consequently, this requires the district’s senior-most officer to step in personally and ensure the correct legal procedure — mandatory FIR registration, where warranted — is followed.
3. Time-bound compliance — then, the Commission sets a strict deadline, such as six weeks, so police must act without delay.
4. Intimation to the complainant — finally, the order also requires police to inform the victim of the action taken.

If police fail to comply with this direction, that failure becomes a further, more serious human rights violation. Moreover, it can also trigger disciplinary recommendations against the officers responsible.

In short: the UPHRC cannot register an FIR itself. Even so, its intervention checks police power, because it compels senior officers to enforce the mandatory duty to register an FIR — and it helps ensure that justice reaches vulnerable citizens.

---

⚠️ What non-compliance means for this RTI filing for police accountability

If the Superintendent of Police, Mirzapur, ignored the UPHRC’s 21/10/2024 directive, the issue becomes more serious. Specifically, it moves from simple police inaction to contempt of a constitutional body, and to a deliberate denial of justice. Furthermore, this non-compliance strengthens the case behind the RTI filing for police accountability and opens up further legal and administrative options.

1. A more serious human rights violation

The UPHRC had already flagged a likely human rights violation — the failure to register the FIR. Then, if the SP Office failed to act on the Commission’s order, that failure points to deliberate or grossly negligent conduct. As a result, it represents a fresh, more serious violation of the victim’s right to justice.

2. Contempt of the Commission’s order

The UPHRC’s order is recommendatory. Nevertheless, a public servant’s unexplained failure to follow it can still trigger serious administrative and disciplinary consequences, and the Commission can open proceedings against the officers responsible.

3. A stronger case for police accountability going forward

In addition, non-compliance by police builds a stronger record for future legal action — for example, a High Court petition — because it shows the applicant exhausted administrative remedies, including this RTI filing for police accountability, while the police system continued to obstruct justice.

---

⏭️ Next steps: beyond this RTI filing for police accountability

Since police did not follow the UPHRC’s direction, the applicant can pursue several options at once:

1. Follow up with the UPHRC

• File a compliance report. First, submit a formal application to the UPHRC, referencing the original case file (14054/24/55/2024) and the 21/10/2024 direction.
• State the non-compliance. Then, note clearly that the Superintendent of Police, Mirzapur, failed to comply within the six-week window.
• Request intervention. Finally, ask the UPHRC to summon the SP to explain the non-compliance, and to recommend disciplinary action against the officers responsible — both for the original refusal and for ignoring the Commission’s order.

2. Pursue a legal remedy under CrPC Section 156(3)

Alternatively, this route offers the most direct way to secure FIR registration.

• File a complaint with the concerned Judicial Magistrate, or the Chief Judicial Magistrate, in Mirzapur.
• Request a direction under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
• Provide evidence. Specifically, the application should detail the offense, the police refusal to register the FIR, and the subsequent disregard of the UPHRC’s direction. Once satisfied, the magistrate can order police to register the FIR and investigate.

The Supreme Court has repeatedly confirmed that a magistrate’s power under Section 156(3) gives citizens a vital tool when police fail their mandatory duty to register a cognizable offense.

3. Escalate through the administration

• File a grievance with higher authorities — the Director General of Police (DGP) of Uttar Pradesh and the District Magistrate (DM) of Mirzapur — detailing the non-compliance. This way, the applicant keeps administrative pressure on the local police.

---

This RTI filing for police accountability, and its source document, remain part of the public record: UPHRC Order (PDF)