Transparency Denied: A Citizen’s Struggle for Information Under RTI Act
The Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005 stands as a cornerstone of Indian democracy, designed to foster transparency and accountability in public authorities, empowering citizens to seek information and hold the government accountable for its actions.
Nonetheless, Yogi M. P. Singh from Mirzapur experienced a significant issue that highlights a troubling instance of how the very mechanism intended to promote openness can be subverted.
In this case, officials not only denied him transparency, but they also rendered this crucial tool ineffective by refusing to provide the requisite information that could shed light on the matter at hand.
His persistent efforts, including a second appeal to the Uttar Pradesh Information Commission, reveal their continual denial of information, raising serious questions about their integrity and commitment to the law.
Tragically, the situation reflects the title, Transparency Denied, at multiple levels, leading to serious allegations of non-compliance and making a mockery of the law.
This episode not only underscores the systemic challenges faced by individuals seeking information but also draws attention to the urgent need for reform in how public authorities operate, ensuring that the tenets of the RTI Act are upheld and that citizens can engage with their government without fear of obstruction or misinformation.
The RTI Application and Its Core Concerns 📝
On September 28, 2024, Mr. Singh submitted an RTI application to the Housing and Urban Planning Department, Lucknow District, specifically addressing it to the Lucknow Development Authority (LDA). He sought crucial details about a major property auction that had garnered significant public interest, but the outcome of this quest was Transparency Denied.
The highly specific information he sought concerned the LDA’s reported auction of 73 properties for ₹515 crore, which was supposed to contribute to urban development in the region. The lack of clarity surrounding the auction raised several questions among local residents, who were keen to understand how such significant assets were being managed and whether the process adhered to the principles of fair governance.
Mr. Singh’s inquiry was not merely about numbers; it represented the broader demand for accountability and transparency in public dealings, aiming to shed light on potential irregularities and to ensure that public resources were allocated justly and equitably.
The Five Points of Information Requested:
- Publication Details: LDA published the auction notice in several daily newspapers, including their number, names, and dates.
- Auction Minutes: The minutes of the proceedings about the auction.
- Sanctioning Staff: The name and designation of the LDA staff who sanctioned the auction.
- Communication Exchanges: Details of communications exchanged about the auction with the government and monitoring departments.
- Executing Staff: The name, designation, and posting details of the LDA staff who executed the auction processing.
The Unresponsive Public Authorities denying transparency 🔇
Mr. Singh’s journey through the RTI process has faced a total lack of response at every official level, which not only frustrates the requester but also signifies a deep-rooted issue within the bureaucracy itself.
This complete absence of communication and accountability raises significant concerns about the commitment to transparency and citizen engagement, essential pillars of democracy.
The repeated failures to adhere to the statutory timelines outlined in the Act suggest a potential systemic disregard for the rights of individuals seeking information.
These issues are further compounded by the apparent indifference of the officials, who seem unbothered by their obligation to provide timely responses.
In many respects, Transparency Denied seems an appropriate term for such a bureaucratic wall, as it encapsulates the disillusionment felt by many who attempt to navigate this convoluted process, only to find themselves met with silence and inaction.
Public Information Officer (PIO) Non-Compliance
The designated PIO, Atul Krishna (Deputy Secretary, LDA), failed to provide any information within the stipulated time. The status update on the RTI application (LKDPA/R/2024/60599) shows that another PIO received it. This transfer occurred as late as November 14, 2024, which was well past the 30-day window for providing a response. This implies that the first PIO never “entertained” the inquiry. Their actions highlight the issue of Transparency Denied.
First Appellate Authority (FAA) Silence
Following the PIO’s silence, Mr. Singh filed a First Appeal on November 3, 2024, to the FAA, Avnindra Kumar Singh (SE, LDA). The appeal status (LKDPA/A/2024/60233) simply showed ‘RTI APPEAL RECEIVED’ as of the filing date. The FAA did not issue any subsequent order or answer. This continued silence from the higher authority compounded the denial of information. Transparency Denied continues to manifest across each appeal level.
Seeking Justice: The Second Appeal and the Call for Penalty ⚖️
Mr. Singh took further action after both the PIO and the FAA stonewalled him. He filed a Second Appeal under Section 19(3) of the RTI Act, 2005, with the Uttar Pradesh Information Commission on December 8, 2024. He hopes that these actions will reverse the trend of Transparency Denied.
The Prayer for Action
The core relief sought in the second appeal goes beyond just getting the information. Mr. Singh’s prayer directly asks the Commission to invoke Section 20 of the RTI Act, which allows for punitive measures:
- Pecuniary Penalty: To impose a penalty on the PIO for failing to provide the information without reasonable cause.
- Disciplinary Proceedings: To initiate disciplinary proceedings against the FAA. Their adoption of the same practice of non-entertainment is an issue. They have also failed to pass an order.
Mr. Singh argues that this arbitrary withholding of public services promotes “anarchy, lawlessness, and chaos.” He calls for “harsh steps against the wrongdoer to win the confidence of citizenry and strengthen the democratic values.”
The Broader Implication: Undermining Transparency
The appellant includes a relevant excerpt from a news report. This excerpt is from Rajdhani Update, dated September 27, 2024. It provides context for his plea. The report highlights public concern over the LDA’s “addiction to profiteering” and its impact on genuine allottees.
The failure of public officials to follow the RTI Act in such a straightforward case suggests a deeper issue. Corruption and an unwillingness to be accountable are “diluting the provisions” of the law. This instance serves as a stark reminder. The RTI Act’s success hinges not just on its existence. It depends on the active and prompt adherence of public authorities to its mandate.
Will the Uttar Pradesh Information Commission take decisive action? Whether it will penalize the non-compliant officials? Will it reaffirm the citizen’s Right to Know in this Transparency Denied scenario?
LDA did not give plots to allottees, but preferred to auction, is corruption
LDA must refund payment of allottees before auction of properties concerned
Facing a similar challenge? Share the details in the box below, and our team of experts will do their best to help.