Urgent Attention Required: Is the RTI Act Being Undermined in Mirzapur?
A recent Second Appeal filed before the Uttar Pradesh Information Commission (UPIC) highlights a worrisome pattern that has raised significant concerns within the community.
This alleged pattern demands urgent attention, not just for the sake of transparency but also for the integrity of public services.
It is crucial because the authorities in the Medical Health and Family Welfare Department Mirzapur Division require immediate intervention as they are reportedly not adhering to the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005.
They have ignored the provisions of the law, which are designed to empower citizens by granting them access to information that affects their lives and wellbeing.
It is particularly troubling that they do not adhere to the RTI Act, 2005, which is fundamental to fostering accountability and responsible governance.
The case was filed by an appellant, Yogi M P Singh, who has taken the initiative to challenge this negligence.
It suggests that the Public Information Officer (PIO) did not respond to a legitimate inquiry for information, thereby undermining the public’s right to know.
Additionally, the First Appellate Authority (FAA) also neglected to respond to both the initial request and the subsequent appeal, reflecting a disturbing trend of inaction that may suggest systemic issues within the departmental structure.
The PIO and FAA did not respond to a later appeal, further eroding trust in governmental institutions and highlighting the urgent need for reforms to ensure compliance with the RTI Act for the benefit of all citizens.
Urgent action required is the Heart of the Matter: A Seeker’s Quest for Information
Yogi M P Singh is the appellant, a concerned citizen dedicated to ensuring transparency and accountability in public services.
He filed an online RTI application on September 24, 2024, in order to bring to light crucial details regarding a pressing issue. Specifically, he sought a 5-point clarification about a representation made by the aggrieved applicant, Mr. Jaychand Maurya, who has faced significant challenges that warrant immediate resolution.
This matter requires urgent attention, as it not only affects the individuals involved but also reflects broader systemic issues within the medical and health administrative framework. Special attention is needed regarding the handling of the original medical documents, which are vital for the resolution of this case.
The Additional Director of Medical and Health’s office allegedly took these documents during an inquiry process, raising concerns about the accountability and integrity of the investigation, as well as the potential impact on patients’ rights and access to medical services.
The Five Points of Information Sought:
- Notings and Action Taken: Give the notings and action taken on the representation of Mr. Jaychand Maurya dated September 23, 2024, before the Additional Director Medical and Health.
- Reason to Deny Original Papers: Provide the reason for denying the return. Mention the two original papers referenced in the representation.
- Custodian’s Identity: Give the name and designation of the staff under whose custody these two original papers protected.
- Missing Papers and FIR: If you cannot find the original papers, provide a copy of the First Information Report (FIR). If you did not register an FIR, explain why this omission occurred.
- Justification for Retention: Explain why the Additional Director’s office still holds the original papers. Urgent attention is required because the inquiry has already concluded.
Allegations of Non-Compliance: A “Mockery” of the Law
The appellant argued that the PIO did not respond within the stipulated time frame, which is a clear violation of the established norms for such processes.
The official status showed that the RTI inquiry was merely marked as “RECEIVED.”
This lack of a timely reply not only indicates a failure to “entertain” the application but also raises concerns about the fundamental efficiency of the public information system.
Furthermore, it highlights potential systemic issues that could hinder transparency and accountability in governance.
Such negligence on the part of the concerned authority is disturbing and compels the Commission to take urgent action to rectify the situation and ensure that similar lapses do not occur in the future, thereby upholding the right to information as a crucial aspect of democratic governance.
After this, the appellant filed a First Appeal on November 02, 2024, which also allegedly met the same fate. The status for the appeal likewise remained as simply “RECEIVED”.
The appellant argues that there is a lack of response from the PIO (JD Mirzapur) as well as the FAA (AD Mirzapur). This absence of response is a clear demonstration of “insolence to the provisions of the Right to Information Act 2005″. It is also a “mockery” of the law and requires urgent attention.
A Deeper Concern: The Issue of Withheld Documents
The appeal highlights a significant underlying issue beyond the procedural failure to respond under the RTI Act. A public authority has retained the individual’s original medical papers. The appellant states that someone took the documents on August 5, 2024. Specifically, this was a medical slip related to the treatment of the applicant’s wife. The authorities took the documents during an inquiry with the assurance that they would return them. This situation requires urgent attention for resolution.
Indefinitely retaining a citizen’s personal original documents is a serious allegation. This is especially true for medical records. The situation is more severe if done without proper legal justification. It becomes even more concerning if done despite the conclusion of the inquiry, thereby requiring urgent attention to these required actions. The appellant views this as a potential “criminal breach of trust” and a promotion of “anarchy, lawlessness, and chaos.”
Seeking Justice: The Prayer Before the UPIC
The Second Appeal was filed on December 07, 2024. It is a direct plea to the Chief Information Commissioner/Companion Information Commissioners to intervene. The primary relief sought is action against the officials for not complying with the RTI Act. The appellant believes this is symptomatic of broader “rampant corruption”. They see it as an effort to dilute the Act’s provisions. The situation is dire and urgent attention to these matters is of paramount importance.
The case presents a critical test for the Information Commission. It must ensure that public authorities uphold the spirit and letter of the RTI Act. This adherence promotes the transparency and accountability that the law aims to establish. If the appellant asserts that authorities do not comply, such non-compliance can lead to a loss of public confidence and requires urgent attention.
What Happens Next?
The Uttar Pradesh Information Commission will now conduct a comprehensive review of the Second Appeal (Registration Number: A-20241200463). In this process, the Commission will meticulously examine the evidence of non-response provided by both the Public Information Officer (PIO) and the First Appellate Authority (FAA), aiming to identify any negligence or failure to comply with the Right to Information Act.
If the Commission substantiates the allegations of non-responsiveness, it has the authority to impose significant penalties on the delinquent officials, a measure that serves to uphold accountability within the public department.
Furthermore, the Commission can also order the immediate provision of the requested information, thereby ensuring the citizen’s right to know, which is a critical aspect of democratic governance.
This decision necessitates urgent attention from relevant authorities, as timely access to information is essential for promoting transparency, fostering public trust, and encouraging an informed citizenry capable of participating actively in the democratic process.
Do you have any thoughts on the role of Information Commissions in ensuring compliance with the RTI Act?
Appeal submitted before AD Mirzapur against JD as not provided information
AD Mirzapur denied to give original papers to Jaychand Maurya
Facing a similar challenge? Share the details in the box below, and our team of experts will do their best to help.