A closer look at one woman’s RTI Request for Justice — filed to get a First Information Report registered — and what it reveals about accountability in Uttar Pradesh policing. This case exemplifies the obstacles faced by individuals seeking justice within a system fraught with inefficiencies and bureaucratic hurdles. The woman’s determination to hold the police accountable highlights the larger issues surrounding law enforcement in the state. By analyzing her request and the responses from authorities, it becomes evident that there is a pressing need for reform in policing practices, ensuring that citizens’ rights are respected and that justice is not only a promise but a reality.

Why This RTI Request for Justice Matters

The Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005 gives every Indian citizen a powerful tool. Citizens can demand documents, records, and explanations from public authorities. As a result, the law checks government secrecy. It lets ordinary people ask “why” and expect a written answer, not just a verbal assurance.

On 9 December 2024, Mahima Maurya filed exactly this kind of RTI Request for Justice with the Director General of Police (DGP) Office in Uttar Pradesh, targeting one of the most consequential institutions in her daily life: the police.

Her application doesn’t ask for statistics or budget figures. Instead, it asks a direct question: why hasn’t her complaint of assault become a First Information Report (FIR)?

Although the application is short, it raises several issues at once. These include police discretion, legal protections for vulnerable complainants, and a basic administrative rule: officials must explain their refusals.

The RTI Request for Justice at a Glance

Detail	Information
Applicant	Mahima Maurya
Registration Number	DGPOF/R/2024/60974
Date Filed	9 December 2024
Public Authority	Director General of Police Office, Uttar Pradesh
Police Station Concerned	Vindhyachal, Mirzapur
PIO Contact	Additional SP (designation), phone 9454405121, email rti.dgphq-up@gov.in

Maurya filed the request from her village, Gorsar Sarpati, in Mirzapur district. Notably, this isn’t her first attempt to get answers from the department. The application references an earlier RTI filing, Registration Number DGPOF/R/2024/60915, which she says produced an evasive response.

What Happened, According to the Applicant

The dispute traces back to an alleged physical assault. According to Maurya, a group of offenders beat her, leaving her with serious injuries, including a fractured hand and wounds to her forehead. A government hospital medical certificate reportedly documents these injuries.

Despite that evidence, the Station House Officer (SHO) at Vindhyachal police station allegedly declined to register an FIR. Officers reportedly told her to pursue the matter through the courts instead, implying that police couldn’t help her directly.

That response sits at the center of the entire RTI Request for Justice. Under Indian law, FIR registration is a duty, not a choice, for cognizable offences — cases where police can investigate and arrest without prior court permission. Indeed, the Supreme Court settled this question in its 2014 ruling in Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh, holding that police must register an FIR once they receive information about a cognizable offence. Any preliminary inquiry before registration should remain the exception, not the rule.

Therefore, if Maurya’s account holds up, the alleged refusal clashes with that legal standard, and her RTI questions target exactly this tension.

The Four Questions Behind This RTI Request for Justice

Maurya structured her application around four specific requests, each attacking a different angle of accountability.

1. Rules on omitting a victim’s name. First, she asks the DGP office to produce any government order, circular, or internal memo that lets a Station House Officer leave the main victim’s name out of a Non-Cognizable Report or an FIR. She notes that her earlier RTI request on this subject came back without supporting documentation, which she calls a misleading response.

2. The legal basis for police “powerlessness.” Next, the second question challenges the SHO’s stated position head-on: what order, circular, or memo strips a station house officer of authority to act against offenders in cases meant to protect women and girls? In other words, if the police say they can’t help, Maurya wants to know which rule says so.

3. Whether any law blocks vulnerable groups from filing FIRs. This question casts the widest net. Has the Uttar Pradesh government issued any order that prevents women, girls, or other vulnerable groups from registering an FIR at a nearby police station? Similarly, has any legal provision guaranteeing justice to assault victims been revoked? Maurya asks for a copy of any such legislation, if it exists.

4. A stated reason for the refusal. Finally, Maurya invokes what she calls the “right to reason,” arguing that sound administration requires officials to explain adverse decisions. Accordingly, she asks the department to formally justify why officers never registered her FIR.

Taken together, these four questions do something clever. Rather than simply asking why the department didn’t help her, they force officials to either produce a rule that justifies the inaction or admit that no such rule exists. Consequently, a non-answer offers no comfortable middle ground.

A Second Problem: No Way to Appeal

Beyond the substance of her complaint, this RTI Request for Justice flags a procedural gap that many RTI users run into. Under the Act, dissatisfied applicants can file a First Appeal with a designated First Appellate Authority (FAA), and if that fails, pursue a Second Appeal with the Central Information Commission or the relevant state information commission.

However, Maurya says the DGP’s office never provided the FAA’s details — name, designation, contact number, and email. Without that information, filing a timely first appeal becomes difficult. So, her application asks the department to supply these details directly, framing the omission as a barrier to exercising a statutory right in itself.

According to RTI activists in Uttar Pradesh, this problem comes up often. Even when a PIO responds, the appellate pathway sometimes stays deliberately vague — and that vagueness tends to discourage applicants from pursuing their complaints further.

Why This RTI Request for Justice Matters Beyond One FIR

On its face, this looks like a single grievance from one village. But Maurya’s questions reach well beyond her individual case. For instance, suppose the DGP’s office can’t produce a government order justifying the SHO’s refusal. That failure would suggest the decision reflected local discretion or negligence, rather than settled policy.

This distinction carries real weight, since it shapes how Maurya, or others like her, might pursue the case afterward — through a police complaints authority, the National Human Rights Commission, or the courts.

Moreover, the case speaks to a wider pattern that rights advocates in the region say they see repeatedly: complainants from marginalized backgrounds, particularly women, facing informal resistance to FIR registration despite clear law on the police’s duty to register cognizable offences. In this sense, an RTI Request for Justice like this one turns that informal resistance into something documented — a paper trail that either produces a justification or exposes its absence.

What Comes Next

Under the RTI Act, a PIO generally must respond within 30 days of receiving an application. Because Maurya’s earlier RTI on a related subject reportedly drew an unsatisfactory reply, this RTI Request for Justice may also need a first appeal, assuming officials eventually provide the FAA’s contact details.

Ultimately, the outcome will reveal how seriously the Uttar Pradesh Police treat both the underlying assault complaint and their broader transparency duties under the RTI Act. For now, though, the case illustrates something important: a citizen armed with a well-crafted RTI Request for Justice can force a government office to justify its conduct — or admit that no justification exists.armed with a well-crafted RTI Request for Justice can force a government office to justify its conduct — or admit that no justification exists. office to justify its conduct — or admit that no justification exists. of how a citizen, armed with nothing more than a set of pointed written questions, can force a government office to either justify its conduct or acknowledge that no justification exists.