Introduction

Proceeding – I have perused the allegations made in the complaint of complainant Mahima Maurya. Keeping in view the nature of allegations made in the complaint it would be appropriate to send a copy of the complaint to the Superintendent of Police, Mirzapur who shall look into the matter and do the needful in accordance with law at his end within six weeks with the intimation to the complainant. I have not expressed any opinion on the merit of the complainant’s case. Subject to the above observations the complaint is finally disposed of.

Order passed in the case – 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 THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE- MIRZAPUR

📢 RTI Filed: Seeking Accountability and Action on Human Rights Commission Order

📝 Key Details of the RTI Request

This request for information, filed under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005, concerns the follow-up action taken by the Superintendent of Police (SP) Office, Mirzapur, on a specific directive issued by the Uttar Pradesh Human Rights Commission (UPHRC).

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 OPERATION)

---

🛑 The Core Issue: Police Inaction & UPHRC Intervention

The primary issue stems from the alleged arbitrariness of the police at Vindhyachal, specifically their failure to register the First Information Report (FIR) of the applicant, Mahima Maurya, and their subsequent overlooking of her representation.

The applicant escalated the matter to the Uttar Pradesh Human Rights Commission (UPHRC).

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

---

❓ Information Sought (RTI Query Points)

The RTI application, filed after the UPHRC’s stipulated period began, seeks transparency and accountability regarding the compliance with the UPHRC’s order. The information requested includes:

1. Staff Identification: Name and designation of the staff who received the UPHRC order dated 21/10/2024.
2. Internal Processing: The notings made on the communication of the UPHRC order within the SP Office.
3. Action Taken Report: The action taken report by the SP Office on the UPHRC order.
4. Reason for Inaction: If no action or order has been passed, the reason for non-compliance, citing the “Right to Reason.”
5. Current Status & Staff: Name and designation of the staff who processed and those who are currently processing the UPHRC order.

The applicant demands this information be provided within the 30-day timeframe as prescribed under Section 7(1) of the RTI Act 2005.

The Uttar Pradesh Human Rights Commission (UPHRC) plays a crucial, though primarily recommendatory, role in cases of police inaction, particularly concerning the registration of a First Information Report (FIR) for vulnerable sections of society.

The core of the UPHRC’s intervention stems from the principle that the failure of police to register an FIR for a cognizable offense constitutes a violation of the victim’s human rights, specifically the right to justice, and potentially Article 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty) of the Constitution.

Here is a breakdown of the UPHRC’s role:

---

1. 🛡️ Statutory Power: Inquiry and Recommendation

• Quasi-Judicial Authority: The UPHRC (like other State Human Rights Commissions) has powers similar to a Civil Court for the purpose of conducting inquiries and investigations into complaints of human rights violations by a public servant.
• Investigating Police Inaction: When a member of a vulnerable section (e.g., women, children, SC/ST, elderly) complains that the police have refused to register their FIR, the UPHRC can take cognizance of the complaint.
• Calling for Reports: The UPHRC will typically issue a notice to the concerned public authority (like the Superintendent of Police or DGP) calling for a detailed report on the complaint and the action taken. This forces the senior police hierarchy to apply its mind to the matter that the local police station ignored.
• Directing Investigation: Based on the inquiry, the UPHRC may issue recommendations to the State Government or the concerned police authority. The UPHRC cannot directly enforce the registration of an FIR (as a Magistrate/Court can), but its public recommendation carries significant weight for accountability.

---

2. 🏛️ Focus on Vulnerable Sections

The UPHRC is constitutionally and morally obligated to ensure special consideration and sensitivity in cases involving vulnerable groups. The non-registration of an FIR for these groups is viewed as an aggravated human rights violation because:

• Denial of Justice: The victim is blocked from the very first step of the criminal justice system.
• Discrimination/Bias: In many such cases, the refusal to register the FIR stems from a perceived bias or an attempt to dismiss the matter as a civil dispute, especially when the complaint involves property or abuse against marginalized groups.
• Mandatory Duty: The UPHRC reinforces the Supreme Court’s ruling in the Lalita Kumari judgment, which makes the registration of an FIR mandatory if the information discloses a cognizable offense, with no preliminary inquiry permitted in most situations.

---

3. 🎯 Specific Action Taken (The Role as Seen in Your Case)

In cases of non-registration of an FIR, the UPHRC generally takes the following steps, as exemplified by the details in your RTI application:

1. Perusal and Review: The Commission peruses the allegations to determine a prima facie human rights violation.
2. Direction to Superior Officer: It directs the Superintendent of police (SP) to “look into the matter and do the needful in accordance with law.” This is a clear directive to the senior-most police official in the district to personally intervene and ensure the correct legal procedure (i.e., mandatory FIR registration, if warranted) is followed.
3. Time-Bound Compliance: The direction is typically given with a strict time limit (e.g., “within six weeks”), compelling the police to act quickly.
4. Intimation to Complainant: The direction mandates “intimation to the complainant,” ensuring the victim is informed of the action taken.

The failure of the police to comply with this UPHRC direction itself becomes a further, more serious human rights violation, which can lead to disciplinary recommendations against the errant officers.

---

In summary: While the UPHRC does not register the FIR itself, its intervention acts as a powerful check on police power, compelling superior officers to enforce the mandatory legal duty of FIR registration and ensure that the right to justice is not denied to a vulnerable citizen.

That is a very serious matter. If the police authority (the Superintendent of Police Office, Mirzapur) failed to comply with the directive of the Uttar Pradesh Human Rights Commission (UPHRC) dated 21/10/2024, it elevates the issue from one of mere police inaction to one of contempt for a constitutional/statutory body and deliberate denial of justice.

This non-compliance strengthens the basis of your RTI request and opens up several avenues for further legal and administrative action.

Here is an assessment of the implications and the next steps you can consider:

⚠️ Implications of Non-Compliance

1. Enhanced Human Rights Violation

The UPHRC had already identified a potential human rights violation (non-registration of FIR). The subsequent failure of the SP Office to act as directed confirms a deliberate or grossly negligent denial of the victim’s right to justice, constituting a fresh and more serious violation of human rights.

2. Contempt of Commission’s Order

While the UPHRC’s order is recommendatory, the failure of a public servant to heed its direction without a valid reason can invite severe administrative and disciplinary action. The UPHRC can initiate proceedings against the responsible officers.

3. Strengthening Your Case

The non-compliance by the police provides powerful evidence for any future legal proceedings (e.g., filing a petition in the High Court) that you have exhausted administrative remedies and that the police system is deliberately obstructing justice.

---

⏭️ Next Steps and Alternative Remedies

Since the UPHRC’s direction was not entertained, you should pursue these options simultaneously:

1. Approach the UPHRC Again (Follow-up)

• File a Compliance Report: You should immediately file a formal application with the UPHRC, referencing the original case file (14054/24/55/2024) and the direction dated 21/10/2024.
• State the Non-Compliance: Clearly state that the Superintendent of Police, Mirzapur, has failed to comply with the direction within the stipulated six-week period.
• Request Intervention: Request the UPHRC to summon the concerned officer (the SP) to explain the non-compliance and recommend disciplinary action against the officers responsible for the original refusal and the subsequent disregard of the Commission’s order.

2. Legal Remedy: Directly to Court (C.R.P.C. Section 156(3))

This is the most effective legal step to ensure the FIR is registered immediately.

• File a Complaint: Approach the concerned Judicial Magistrate (or Chief Judicial Magistrate) in Mirzapur.
• Request Direction: File an application/complaint under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.).
• Provide Evidence: The application should detail the offense, the police’s refusal to register the FIR, and the subsequent disregard of the UPHRC’s specific direction. The Magistrate, upon being satisfied, has the power to mandate the police to register the FIR and conduct an investigation.

Note: The Supreme Court has repeatedly affirmed that the Magistrate’s power under Section 156(3) is a vital tool for citizens when the police fail in their mandatory duty to register a cognizable offense.

3. Escalation through Administration

• File a Grievance: File a formal grievance with the higher authorities, such as the Director General of Police (DGP) of Uttar Pradesh and the District Magistrate (DM) of Mirzapur, detailing the non-compliance with the UPHRC’s order. This keeps administrative pressure on the local police.