A Citizen’s RTI Battle: Technical Glitches and Unanswered Questions at the UP Information Commission

Summary: An RTI application filed by activist Yogi M. P. Singh reveals a frustrating experience with the hybrid hearing system at the Uttar Pradesh Information Commission. Despite a Supreme Court mandate for smooth virtual access, his case highlights significant delays. There are technical failures. Additionally, the official reply sidesteps direct questions about accountability.

---

We live in an era where technology is meant to bridge distances. It should enhance access to justice. But, the reality on the ground can often be a different story. A recent Right to Information (RTI) application filed with the Uttar Pradesh Information Commission (UPIC) by Mr. Yogi M. P. Singh sheds light on the challenges citizens face when engaging with the very systems designed to empower them.

The case is centered around a hybrid (virtual) hearing scheduled for 11th November 2024$. It brings into focus the practical implementation of a landmark Supreme Court directive.

The Supreme Court’s Mandate for Hybrid Hearings

To set the context, on 9th October 2023$, the Supreme Court of India, led by CJI Dr. D. Y. Chandrachud, passed a crucial order. It required all State Information Commissions (SICs) to offer a hybrid mode of hearing. This must be done for all complaints and appeals by 31st December 2023$. The court rightly observed that:

“Access to the Information Commissions is integral to securing the right to information. This right is a necessary concomitant of the right to equality under Article 14. It is also part of the freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. Furthermore, it is related to the right to life under Article 21.

This directive was a significant step towards making the RTI process more accessible and convenient for citizens across the country.

The Grievance: A Day of Delays and Disconnections

Mr. Singh’s RTI application (Registration No. UPICM/R/2024/60674) details a deeply frustrating experience during a hearing presided over by SIC Smt. Shakuntala Gautam. His case listed first for the day. He meticulously documented his ordeal and sought answers to four specific questions:

1. Reason for Undue Delay: The hearing scheduled to start at 9:05 AM but actually commenced at 1:30 PM. He referenced the Supreme Court’s view. The court believes that the “right to reason is an indispensable part of a sound judicial system.” He requested a formal reason for this four-and-a-half-hour delay.
2. Identity of Technical Staff: The moment his name, called for the hearing, the video connection, instantly disrupted. He requested the names and designations of the staff responsible for managing the hybrid hearing infrastructure.
3. Contact for Reconnection Assistance: listed first, he was anxious to reconnect and follow the proceedings. He wanted to know the name of the staff member responsible for linking appellants to the virtual courtroom. He also asked for their designation and mobile number.
4. Details of the Unresponsive Court Presenter: Mr. Singh stated that he made repeated calls to the court’s presenter (peshkar) for assistance, but all his calls, ignored. He demanded the name, designation, and posting details of this official.

His complaint paints a picture of systemic mismanagement. It wasted his entire day from 9:05 AM to 3:00 PM. This effectively denied him a smooth and fair hearing.

The Commission’s Official Reply

On 10th December 2024$, a reply furnished by Mr. Sarvesh Kumar Gupta, the Peshkar (Presenter) of the concerned hearing room. The official response, written in Hindi, stated:

“सेवा में, श्रीमान जनसूचना अधिकारी उ०प्र० राज्य सूचना आयोग, लखनऊ। महोदय, सादर अवगत कराना है कि आपका पत्र दिनांक-09.12.2024 के सम्बन्ध में आवेदक श्री योगी एम०पी० सिंह द्वारा चाही गयी सूचना के क्रम में अवगत कराना है कि दिनांक-11.11.2024 को ऑनलाइन सुनवाई हेतु दो पत्रावली नियत थी, जिसका सुनवाई लिंक 10.30 से भेजा गया था, जिसमें श्री योगी एम०पी० सिंह दिनांक-11.11.2024 को ऑनलाइन उपस्थित हुए। आवेदक के तर्क को सुनकर मा० आयुक्त महोदया द्वारा आदेश पारित किया गया जो कि वेबसाइट पर अपलोड है, जिसमें अगली सुनवाई तिथि 12.12. 2024 नियत है, जिसकी आदेश की प्रति संलग्न कर आपको प्रेषित की जा रही है।”

Translation:

To, The Public Information Officer, U.P. State Information Commission, Lucknow. Sir, With due respect, in reference to your letter dated 09.12.2024 and about the information sought by applicant Mr. Yogi M.P. Singh, it is to be informed that on 11.11.2024, two case files were scheduled for online hearing, for which the hearing link was sent from 10:30 AM. In this, Mr. Yogi M.P. Singh was there online on 11.11.2024. After hearing the applicant’s arguments, the Hon’ble Commissioner passed an order. This order is uploaded on the website. The next hearing date is fixed for 12.12.2024. A copy of the order is being sent attached.”

Analysis: Information Sought vs. Information Provided

A critical look at the reply reveals a classic case of bureaucratic evasion.

• Question 1 (Reason for delay): Not answered.
• Question 2 (Name of technical staff): Not answered.
• Question 3 (Contact for assistance): Not answered.
• Question 4 (Details of the presenter): Not answered.

Instead of providing the specific information requested, the PIO’s reply simply confirms that Mr. Singh was there, an order passed, and a new date given. This fails to tackle the core issues of delay, technical failure, and lack of support raised in the RTI. It completely ignores the demand for accountability.

This incident underscores a larger issue. While policies and judicial orders for incorporating technology are laudable, their success hinges entirely on effective implementation. It also depends on the accountability of the officials managing them. For citizens like Mr. Singh, the promise of accessible justice remains unfulfilled when technical glitches met with official silence. His next step would likely be a First Appeal against this inadequate response. He continues his fight for transparency not just in government records but in the process of seeking information itself.

Bhaskar Pandey (Joint Secretary), C.M.O. did not attach report but made comment as report attached