RTI Appeal Analysis: Mahima Maurya vs. Superintendent of Police, Mirzapur
In a case highlighting the challenges citizens face in obtaining information from law enforcement agencies, Mahima Maurya has filed a First Appeal under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005. The appeal, registered as SPMZR/A/2024/60047, is directed against the Superintendent of Police Office, Mirzapur, citing the provision of “Incomplete, Misleading or False Information” in response to her original RTI application.
This post meticulously breaks down the intricate case, analyzing each point of contention between the applicant and the Public Information Officer (PIO).
Through an in-depth examination, we explore the underlying issues that have led to disagreements, focusing on the specific claims made by the applicant and the responses provided by the PIO.
By delving into the nuances of their arguments, this analysis aims to shed light on the complexities of the situation, providing readers with a comprehensive understanding of the various perspectives involved and the implications of their interactions.
Case File: At a Glance on the application and appeal of Mahima
- Applicant Name: Mahima Maurya
- Public Authority: Superintendent of Police Office, Mirzapur
- Original RTI Application No.: SPMZR/R/2024/60200
- RTI Filing Date: 06/11/2024
- First Appeal No.: SPMZR/A/2024/60047
- Appeal Filing Date: 18/12/2024
- Grounds for Appeal: Provided Incomplete, Misleading or False Information.
Point-by-Point Breakdown of the Appeal
Here is a detailed look at the information sought by Ms. Maurya, the response provided by the PIO, and her reasons for the appeal.
Point 1: Copy of the Complaint
- Information Sought: “Please provide the copy of the complaint registered by the Vindhyachal police on the application of the information seeker based on the medical examination report of the information Seeker carried out in the community health centre Vindhyachal on the same date.
- Information Provided by PIO: “गैर संज्ञेय रिपोर्ट या प्रथम सूचना रिपोर्ट में मुख्य पीड़िता का नाम के उल्लेख करने के सम्बन्ध में दिये गये आदेशो निर्देशो का पालन कर नियमानुसार कार्यवाही की जा रही है।” (Translation: “Action is being taken as per rules by following the given orders/instructions regarding mentioning the name of the main victim Mahima in the Non-Cognizable Report or First Information Report.”)
- Applicant’s Submission: “I have sought a copy of the complaint registered so information is misleading.”
Analysis: The applicant Mahima asked for a specific document—a copy of the complaint. The PIO’s response is a general statement about procedural actions and does not provide the requested document, making it evasive and non-compliant.
Point 2: Copy of Witness Testimony of Mahima
- Information Sought: “Please provide the copy of the witness testimony of the information seeker as the main victim in the matter if any is taken by the concerned police and the circle officer City in the matter.
- Information Provided by PIO: “आवेदिका महिमा मौर्य के पती प्रमोद कुमार कुशवाहा पुत्र रामबली निवासी गोडसर सरपत्ती थाना बिन्ध्याचल जनपद मीरजापुर के तहरीर के आधार पर थाना स्थानीय पर एनसीआर नम्बर 104/24 धारा 115(2)/352 बीएनएस में दिनांक 14.09.2024 को अभियोग दर्ज किया गया है। जिसमें दिनांक 14.09.24 को 170/126/135 बीएनएसएस में कार्यवाही किया गया है।” (Translation: “On the basis of a written complaint by the applicant Mahima Maurya’s husband, Pramod Kumar Kushwaha… a Non-Cognizable Report (NCR) No. 104/24 under sections 115(2)/352 BNS was registered on 14.09.2024… in which action was taken under sections 170/126/135 BNSS on 14.09.24.”)
- Applicant’s Submission: “Since they never took the witness testimony of the victim so they provided misleading information. Why witness testimony of Mahima Maurya is not available to police?”
Analysis: The applicant asked for her own witness testimony. The PIO responded with details of a case filed by her husband, which does not answer the question. This is a classic case of providing irrelevant information to sidestep the actual query.
Point 3: Copy of Complaint with Applicant’s Name
- Information Sought: “Please provide a copy of any complaint registered by the police on the complaint of information seeker on which name of the information seeker is mentioned in the police record.
- Information Provided by PIO: “नही” (Translation: “No”)
- Applicant’s Submission: “No copy made available. Please provide the reason for not providing the copy as required under subsection 1(d) of section 4 of RTI Act 2005.”
Analysis: The PIO’s one-word negative response, while direct, fails to provide reasons, which the applicant Mahima correctly points out is an obligation for public authorities under the proactive disclosure clauses of the RTI Act.
Point 4: Report of Police Findings
- Information Sought: “Please provide the copy of the report of the police findings based on the complaint of the information seeker so that the applicant may submit before the court…
- Information Provided by PIO: (The PIO provided the same response as in Point 2, detailing the NCR filed by the applicant’s husband.)
- Applicant’s Submission: “Whether it is a report of the police findings based on the complaint of the Mahima Maurya. Whether on the basis of it, Mahima Maurya can seek shelter in the Court of law.
Analysis: The applicant sought a formal report on her complaint. The PIO again diverted to the husband’s complaint. The applicant’s submission questions the utility and relevance of the provided information for her legal purposes, underscoring the PIO’s failure to provide the correct document.
Point 5: Circle Officer’s Investigation Report
- Information Sought: “Circle officer City must provide the copy of the report which is based on the investigation of his own office on the complaint of the applicant cum information seeker.”
- Applicant’s Submission: “No such report provided by the public information officer under this point.
Analysis: The appeal states that this query was simply not answered, which is a clear denial of information.
Point 6: Report on CM Office Complaints
- Information Sought: “Please provide the copy of the report submitted on the two complaints of the information seeker before the chief minister office, based on the findings of the investigation of the office of circle officer City.
- Information Provided by PIO: “PIO did not entertain it.”
Analysis: Similar to the previous point, the information was not provided to Mahima, constituting a refusal to comply with the RTI request.
Key Officials and Contact Information
First Appellate Authority (FAA) Details:
- Name: ABHINANDAN
- Designation: MIRZAPUR
- Phone No.: 05442252578
- Email Id: spmzr-up@nic.in
Nodal Officer Details:
- Name: omprakash singh
- Email-ID: addlspopmzr@gmail.com
Public Information Officer (PIO) Details:
- Name: OM PRAKASH SINGH
- Designation: ASP OPERATION
- Phone No.: 9125608556
- Email Id: aspopmzp@gmail.com
Applicant’s Contact Details:
- Name: Mahima Maurya
- Mobile Number: +91-9198010433
- Email-ID: mahimamauryagonasar[at]gmail[dot]com
Facing a similar challenge? Share the details in the box below, and our team of experts will do their best to help.