The Right to Know Denied: A Citizen’s Battle for Transparency in Uttar Pradesh
The Right to Information (RTI) Act of 2005 aimed to usher in an era of transparency and accountability in governance, providing citizens with the power to seek information from public authorities and thereby promoting a culture of openness.
Yet, a recent case from Uttar Pradesh suggests that some public authorities treat the law with disdain and undermine its core purpose.
Denying the right to know, they resort to questionable rules and arbitrary practices to withhold critical information from the public, effectively obstructing the very principles of democracy that the RTI sought to promote.
This disregard for transparency not only erodes trust between the government and citizens but also ignores the prescribed appellate process designed to protect the rights of individuals seeking information.
Such actions highlight a concerning trend where instead of fostering accountability, certain authorities are increasingly engaged in evasion tactics, thereby posing a serious challenge to the implementation and success of the RTI Act in Indian society.
The Case: Seeking Clarity on Regularisation Notification
Shri Yogi M P Singh of Mirzapur filed an RTI application (No. DPERS/R/2024/60230) on October 31, 2024, with the Karmik Department (Personnel Department) of the Uttar Pradesh government, a critical step in seeking transparency about government operations.
His request sought a five-point clarification regarding a notification on the regularisation of daily wage staff, addressing important concerns about job security, wage discrepancies, and the overall treatment of temporary workers in the government sector.
By filing this application, Shri M P Singh aims to shed light on the complexities surrounding employment policies that directly affect the livelihoods of countless individuals dependent on daily wages, emphasizing the importance of fair and equitable practices within the state’s employment framework and advocating for the rights of workers who have often been overlooked in such discussions.
The core of his request was simple:
- Information available on the regularisation of daily wage staff under the notification.
- Subsequent communications with other departments about the notification.
- Names and designations of the drafting committee members.
- Name and designation of the chairman/head of the drafting committee.
- Number of personnel regularised and details of the data collection centre.
The Denial: Misusing the ‘Non-Available Data’ Rule
On November 4, 2024, Section Officer Ram Jatan, who is the Public Information Officer (PIO), rejected the RTI application submitted by a concerned citizen seeking information about local governance issues.
This action marked another instance of denial of the right to know that many activists and citizens in the area have been valiantly fighting for, emphasizing the necessity of transparency in public administration.
The official cited Rule 4(2)(b)(i) of the Uttar Pradesh Right to Information Rules, 2015, as the Reason for Rejection, claiming that the information requested was not deemed to be in the public interest.
This decision, however, raised more questions than it answered, as many believe that withholding information undermines the very purpose of the RTI Act, which is designed to empower citizens with knowledge and to promote accountability within government bodies.
What is Rule 4(2)(b)(i)?
This specific rule states that an RTI request cannot involve the “fresh collection of non-available data.” This means that agencies cannot collect data unless it requires under the law.
Consequently, this restriction ensures that the integrity of the data collection process is maintained and that agencies focus on providing information that is already available, rather than initiating new data gathering efforts which could lead to inconsistencies and complications.
It must also adhere to the department’s rules, which are designed to provide a framework for how data should be accessed and used, ensuring transparency and accountability in the management of public information requests while also respecting the constraints imposed by existing laws and regulations.
Shri Singh makes a compelling argument in his second appeal, stating that public authorities illegally deny the right to know.
- Asking for information available in the department (Point 1) is not a request for fresh data collection.
- The formation of a committee (Points 3 & 4) is a documented, past event. Not providing details of a drafting committee for an official government notification shows an alarming lack of institutional memory. It also indicates an unwillingness to be accountable for the policy’s outcome.
- The department has no records on who drafted the policy. It also lacks records on whether officials successfully implemented it. This directly contradicts the spirit of the RTI Act.
The Appellate Failure: A Mockery of the Act
Following the denial, Shri Singh submitted a First Appeal. He addressed it to the First Appellate Authority (FAA), Deputy Secretary Devesh Mishar. This submission occurred on November 5, 2024.
According to the appeal status (DPERS/A/2024/60075), the appeal was received but there was “no answer” and “no date of order.”
This inaction by the FAA is particularly concerning. The appellate mechanism exists precisely to review the PIO’s decision and ensure citizens’ right to information is not unjustly curtailed. However, the right to know was denied yet again as the FAA did not even entertain the appeal. By doing so, it has effectively made a “mockery of the provisions of the right to information act 2005.”
The Second Appeal: An Urgent Call to the Information Commission as Right to Know Denied
This double failure began with the arbitrary denial by the PIO. It continued with the subsequent silence from the FAA. As a result, Shri Singh filed a Second Appeal (A-20241200610) with the Uttar Pradesh Information Commission on December 9, 2024.
His prayer to the Chief Information Commissioner is clear: to curb the “anarchy” in the working of the public authority.
The appellant highlights a crucial public interest point because PIO denied Right to Know . Why are officials “running away from providing the details of the team members? They formulated the notification which proved ineffective. It was a Cruel Joke with the unemployed youth…”
This case serves as a stark reminder that authorities often deny the Right to Information (RTI) Act. Even years after its enactment, the RTI Act’s success relies on public servants. They must act with integrity and adhere to its principles. The Information Commission plays a vital role. It ensures that the rules meant to promote transparency uphold its dignity. This helps prevent the promotion of opacity and bureaucratic impunity.
What are your thoughts on this case? Have you faced similar arbitrary denials from public authorities under the RTI Act? Share your experiences in the comments below. Right to Know Denied has been practice in the working of public authorities.
Public information officer, local body directorate did not provide any information
Facing a similar challenge? Share the details in the box below, and our team of experts will do their best to help.