RTI Filed with Uttar Pradesh Information Commission Over Unpublished Final Order
Activist Yogi M P Singh filed a Right to Information (RTI) application with the Uttar Pradesh Information Commission (UPIC), seeking to understand the accountability and transparency of the commission’s processes.
In his application, he questioned the ongoing delay and the failure to upload a final order on the commission’s website, which is critical for public access to information.
The order in question pertained to a second appeal case that has been marked as “disposed of,” yet the lack of accessible details raises concerns about whether all procedural norms were adhered to.
Singh emphasized the importance of timely updates and the necessity for the commission to maintain clear communication with the public, ensuring that citizens can effectively track the progress of their appeals and have confidence in the justice being served.
The application highlights a crucial issue of transparency and accountability within the quasi-judicial body. It emphasizes the applicant’s right to access reasoned orders promptly.
RTI Application Details filed in Uttar Pradesh Information Commission
To promote transparency in the ombudsman’s work, the Uttar Pradesh Information Commission received this RTI application to ensure that the ombudsman documents and makes decisions that the public can easily access.
By harnessing the power of the Right to Information Act, we aim to hold the ombudsman accountable and foster a culture of openness, which is essential to building public trust in the institutions meant to serve citizens.
This application seeks detailed information on the ombudsman’s functioning, guidelines, and activities, highlighting transparency as a cornerstone of effective governance.
- Registration Number:
UPICM/R/2024/60807 - Applicant Name: Yogi M P Singh
- Date of Filing: 20/12/2024
- Public Authority: Uttar Pradesh Information Commission
Case Background of RTI application in Uttar Pradesh Information Commission
The RTI pertains to a specific second appeal filed by Mr. Singh, who has been actively seeking information to ensure transparency within the functioning of public authorities.
This second appeal represents a significant step in his pursuit of accountability, as he aims to address the issues he has faced during the initial request.
The details of the case are as follows: it encompasses the timeline of events leading up to the appeal, the responses received from the Public Information Officer, as well as the specific queries raised by Mr. Singh that necessitated this second appeal.
Through this process, Mr. Singh is not only advocating for his own rights but also setting a precedent for others who may wish to seek information from government bodies.
- Diary/Registration Number: A-20240602365
- File Number: S11/A/0813/2024
- Applicant: Yogi M P Singh
- Respondent: Manish Kumar Mishra, Public Information Officer, POLICE COMMISSIONERATE GAUTAMBUDHNAGAR
- Applied Date: 27/06/2024
- Hearing Room: S-11
- Hearing Date: 17th December 2024
- Current Status: Final order passed and case disposed of.
The applicant observes that the case closed. However, they do not find the final order on the UPIC website. Instead, they still see an earlier order online.
Information Sought from the Public Information Officer (PIO)
Mr. Singh has requested the Public Information Officer (PIO) of the Uttar Pradesh Information Commission to provide the following information point-wise:
Here’s a revised version in active voice:
This document provides a detailed breakdown of the procedures we follow to process Right to Information (RTI) applications. It outlines the typical timeframe for addressing these applications and includes statistical data on the number of RTI requests we received and resolved in the past year.
Mr Singh also wants clarification on the average response time, the number of appeals filed against decisions, and details of any public awareness programs conducted to educate citizens about their rights under the RTI Act.
- Timeframe for Uploading Orders: What is the standard time the staff of the Uttar Pradesh State Information Commission spends? How long does it take them to upload an order on the website after passing it?
- Reason for Non-Upload: The second appeal’s status shows that a “Final order passed and case disposed of.” Please specify why the UPIC website does not upload the final order. The applicant notes that a search reveals only a previous order is available.
- Policy on Uploading Orders: Should quasi-judicial bodies like the Information Commission upload their orders on their website? Is it necessary for them to do so? Please provide copies of any government orders, circulars, or office memos that support the decision not to upload such orders.
- Copy of the Final Order: Please provide a copy of the final order. It was passed by the presiding officer in the aforementioned case (
S11/A/0813/2024).
Legal Justification for the Request
The applicant has supported his request by citing legal principles that underpin the Right to Information Act. He also referenced judicial observations on the importance of reasoned decisions, emphasizing that these principles are not merely procedural but essential for maintaining transparency and accountability in governance.
These reasoned decisions serve as the bedrock of trust between the administration and the public, illustrating how thoughtful deliberation fosters informed citizenry and enhances civic engagement.
Good administration and justice rely on these crucial considerations, reinforcing the idea that fair practices must complement the rule of law to uphold democratic values.
Ultimately, the applicant’s arguments highlight the interplay between law and ethics in promoting a just society.
“Even in respect of administrative orders Lord Denning, M.R. in Breen v. Amalgamated Engg. Union (1971) 1 All ER 1148, observed: ‘The giving of reasons is one of the fundamentals of good administration.’ In Alexander Machinery (Dudley) Ltd. v. Crabtree 1974 ICR 120 (NIRC) it was observed: ‘Failure to give reasons amounts to denial of justice.‘ Reasons are live links. They connect the mind of the decision-taker to the controversy in question. They also link to the decision or conclusion arrived at. Reasons substitute subjectivity by objectivity… Right to reason is an indispensable part of a sound judicial system.
The applicant underscores that as a quasi-judicial body, the UPIC must provide a reasoned order. Without this, it is impossible to exercise the power of judicial review.
Contact and Officer Details
Applicant Details
- Name: Yogi M P Singh
- Address: Mohalla Surekapuram, Jabalpur Road, Sangmohal post office, Mirzapur, Uttar Pradesh, 231001
- Mobile Number: +91-7379105911
- Email: yogimpsingh[at]gmail[dot]com
Public Information Officer (PIO) Details
- PIO Name: MUMTAZ AHMAD
- Designation: ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER
- Phone No.: 9151804317
- Email Id: jansu-section.upic@up.gov.in
Nodal Officer Details
- Name: TEJASKAR PANDEY
- Email-ID: [Not Provided]
Facing a similar challenge? Share the details in the box below, and our team of experts will do their best to help.