🚨 RTI Denials & Prayagraj Police: The Appellant’s Stand Against Non-Disclosure by Prayagraj Police

Appeal Registration Number: A-20240100094 | Hearing Date: 02/01/2025This case involves RTI Denials & Prayagraj Police and the ongoing challenges related to transparency and information access.

The Second Appeal filed by Yogi M P Singh before the Uttar Pradesh Information Commission highlights persistent issues regarding the denial of information by the Public Information Officer (PIO) of the Police Commissionerate, Prayagraj. The appellant argues that the PIO has invoked various sections of the Right to Information (RTI) Act 2005, particularly Section 8(1)(h) and 8(1)(j), on “flimsy grounds” to withhold basic public information. (RTI Denials & Prayagraj Police)

---

1. Information Denied Under Section 8(1)(h): Impeding Investigation

The first point of contention relates to police station statistics.

Sought Information (Query 1) (RTI Denials & Prayagraj Police)

• Number of NCRs and FIRs registered in PS Mauaima, Prayagraj (Current and FY 2022-23).
• Number of cases under Section 107/116/151 of Cr. P.C. (preventive measures).

PIO’s Stance

• Denied under Section 8(1)(h): Information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders. (RTI Denials & Prayagraj Police)

Appellant’s Core Argument

The appellant strongly challenges this denial, asking: “How can the total number of cases registered… if disclosed by the station house officer will impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders?” (RTI Denials & Prayagraj Police)

Furthermore, the appellant cites Supreme Court observations and Section 4(1)(d) of the RTI Act, asserting that the PIO has an “obligatory duty” to provide reasons for the decision, emphasizing that the “Right to reason is an indispensable part of a sound judicial system.

---

2. Information Denied Under Section 8(1)(j): Unwarranted Invasion of Privacy

The majority of the remaining queries were denied on the ground of being ‘personal information’ under Section 8(1)(j).

A. Details of Government Expenditure (Queries 2 & 7)

Query No.	Sought Information	PIO’s Exemption	Appellant’s Submission
2 (v)(RTI Denials & Prayagraj Police)	Fuel expenses (diesel/petrol) for government vehicles in PS Mauaima (FY 2019-20 to Current FY).	8(1)(j) (Personal Information)	Is fuel spent on a government vehicle personal information?
7	Electricity bill expenses for PS Mauaima (FY 2019-20 to Current FY).	8(1)(j) (Personal Information)	Is the electricity bill of a police station personal information?

The appellant argues that the expenditure on government resources is a matter of public activity and interest, having no relation to the privacy of an individual.

B. Posting/Transfer Details of Personnel (Queries 3, 4, & 5)

The appellant sought details on the posting and joining dates of the Station House Officer, all Sub-Inspectors, and all Police Constables at PS Mauaima, Prayagraj, with names. (RTI Denials & Prayagraj Police)

• PIO’s Stance: Denied under Section 8(1)(j).
• Appellant’s Submission: The appellant questions whether the “transfer and posting of police personnel is the personal information?” and demands the PIO provide a clear reason for this classification.

C. Details of Police Action and FIRs (Query 8) (RTI Denials & Prayagraj Police)

• Sought Information: Action taken by police against illegal liquor businesses (selling without a license) and the number of FIRs registered under the Narcotics Act.
• PIO’s Stance: Denied under Section 8(1)(j).
• Appellant’s Submission: The appellant notes that the PIO is “deny[ing] every information concerning the working of the police in the name of personal information,” calling the justification into question.

---

3. Information Denied Under Non-Applicable Provision (Queries 3 & 6) (RTI Denials & Prayagraj Police)

In a peculiar set of denials, the PIO incorrectly cited Section 8(1)(3) for two queries, a subsection that does not exist in Section 8(1) of the RTI Act.

Query No.	Sought Information	PIO’s Exemption	Appellant’s Submission
3	Posting and joining details of the ongoing Station House Officer.	8(1)(3)	“This provision is not available.”
6	Fund details spent on painting and whitewashing in the police station in the last five years.	8(1)(3)	“This provision is not available.”

---

4. Relief Sought by the Appellant

The appellant is seeking two primary outcomes from the Information Commission: (RTI Denials & Prayagraj Police)

1. Direction to Provide Information: An order directing the Public Information Officer to stop denying information on “flimsy grounds” and to provide the sought details in accordance with the law.
2. Action for Undue Delay: Action against the PIO for violating Section 7(1) of the RTI Act due to the undue delay in providing the correct information.

The appellant’s case hinges on the principle of transparency and the need for public authorities to provide reasoned, legally sound justifications when denying information.

That’s a great suggestion. To better illustrate the legal conflict at the heart of the appeal, I will provide a concise summary of the legal precedents found regarding the disclosure of police information, followed by an organizational chart that illustrates the typical RTI appeal process.

⚖️ Legal Precedents: RTI Disclosure in Police Matters (RTI Denials & Prayagraj Police)

The search for legal precedents indicates a strong judicial emphasis on transparency and a strict interpretation of the exemptions under Section 8 of the RTI Act. (RTI Denials & Prayagraj Police)

1. Disclosure of Case Data vs. Investigation Details (Section 8(1)(h))

• The Principle: The mere existence of an investigation or prosecution is not sufficient grounds for refusal. The authority must demonstrate, with satisfactory reasons, how the specific information sought would actively hamper the investigation or prosecution process.
• Relevance to Query 1 (FIR/NCR/Preventive Cases): The appellant’s argument is strong here. Courts generally agree that aggregated data like the total number of FIRs or NCRs registered is a matter of public record and routine administration. Disclosing a count of registered cases is unlikely to “impede the process of investigation” and therefore, the blanket denial under Section 8(1)(h) is questionable unless the PIO provides a clear, case-specific justification.

2. Personal Information and Public Interest (Section 8(1)(j))(RTI Denials & Prayagraj Police)

• The Principle: This section exempts “personal information” that has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or would constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy. However, if a larger public interest justifies the disclosure, the information must be released.
• Relevance to Queries 2, 4, 5, 7, 8 (Expenses & Posting Details):
  • government Expenses (Queries 2 & 7): Details on the fuel expenses of government vehicles and the electricity bill of a police station relate directly to the expenditure of public funds and the functioning of a public authority. Precedents suggest this is highly unlikely to qualify as “personal information” under Section 8(1)(j).
  • Posting and Transfer (Queries 4 & 5): The transfer and posting of public servants are considered part of their official duty and public activity. While the disclosure of specific, sensitive details (like performance appraisals or disciplinary records) may be protected, the name, designation, and place/date of posting are generally not considered protected personal information, as they relate to a public function.

3. Right to Reasons (RTI Denials & Prayagraj Police)

The appellant’s citation of the principle that “Right to reason is an indispensable part of a sound judicial system” is judicially supported. The PIO’s obligation is not merely to cite an exemption section, but to provide a clear, rational, and legally sound explanation of why that exemption applies to the specific information requested.

---

🗺️ Visualizing the RTI Appeal Process

To illustrate the appellant’s current position within the legal framework, here is a diagram of the standard process:

The Right to Information (RTI) Appeal Flow

The Appellant’s Position: Yogi M P Singh has filed a Second Appeal (Stage 3). This means the PIO denied the information (Stage 1), and the First Appellate Authority (FAA) likely either upheld the denial or failed to respond (Stage 2). The case is now before the highest authority—the State Information Commission (SIC)—which will adjudicate the validity of the PIO’s exemptions. (RTI Denials & Prayagraj Police)

Understood. Here is a concise, point-by-point summary of the appellant’s submissions, organized for use as speaking notes during the hearing on January 2, 2025.

🗣️ Speaking Notes for Second Appeal (A-20240100094) (RTI Denials & Prayagraj Police)

The appellant, Yogi M P Singh, seeks intervention from the Uttar Pradesh Information Commission regarding the blanket denial of information by the PIO of Police Commissionerate, Prayagraj.

---

I. Challenge to Denials Under Section 8(1)(h) – Impeding Investigation

(Refers to Sought Information 1: NCR, FIR, and 107/116/151 Cr.P.C. Case Counts)

1. Issue: The PIO denied the total number of cases registered, claiming disclosure would “impede the process of investigation” under Section 8(1)(h).
2. Argument: Total case counts (statistics) are administrative, public records. There is no logical or explained link demonstrating how disclosing a number of registered cases hampers any ongoing investigation or prosecution.
3. Legal Point: The PIO failed to provide reasons for the decision, violating Section 4(1)(d) of the RTI Act and the principle established by the Apex Court regarding the ‘Right to Reason’. (RTI Denials & Prayagraj Police)

---

II. Challenge to Denials Under Section 8(1)(j) – Personal Information

(Refers to Sought Information 2, 4, 5, 7, 8: Expenses, Postings, and Action Taken)

Area of Information	Queries	Argument Against Denial (8(1)(j))
Public Funds Expenditure	Q2 (Fuel Expenses) & Q7 (Electricity Bills)	These detail expenditure on government vehicles and a public building (Police Station). This is not personal information; it is public activity, and disclosure serves the larger public interest in financial transparency.
Police Personnel Details	Q4, Q5 (Posting of SIs & Constables)	Transfer and posting of public servants relate to their public duty and official functions. It is not an ‘unwarranted invasion of privacy’ to disclose where police personnel are officially posted.
Police Operational Data	Q8 (Action on Illegal Liquor/Narcotics FIRs)	Information on police action against crime is core to their public function. Denying this as ‘personal information’ is an attempt to obstruct transparency regarding police performance.

---

III. Challenge to Procedural & Legal Errors (RTI Denials & Prayagraj Police)

(Refers to Sought Information 3, 6, and General Delay)

1. Incorrect Citation (Q3 & Q6): The PIO cited Section 8(1)(3) for denying information on the SHO’s posting and painting funds. This specific subsection (8(1)(3)) does not exist under the RTI Act, indicating a fundamental lack of due diligence and knowledge of the law by the PIO.
2. Undue Delay: The PIO’s delay in providing legitimate information violates the timeline mandated by Section 7(1) of the RTI Act.

---

IV. Relief Sought (Prayer to the Commission)

1. Direction: Direct the Public Information Officer to immediately provide the complete, accurate information for all queries in accordance with the law. (RTI Denials & Prayagraj Police)
2. Action: Take punitive action against the PIO for:
   • Denying information on “flimsy grounds” (misuse of exemptions).
   • Undue delay in providing information (violation of Section 7(1)).

This is an excellent way to strengthen your legal arguments. Instead of direct web links, which often break or change, I will provide you with the Case Titles and Core Holdings of highly relevant Supreme Court and High Court judgments, and Central Information Commission (CIC) decisions. These are the “wavelengths” the Commission will recognize and respect. (RTI Denials & Prayagraj Police)

You can cite these titles in your submissions to prove that the PIO’s denial is contrary to established legal precedent.

---

🏛️ Judicial Precedents Supporting the Appellant’s Claims (RTI Denials & Prayagraj Police)

A. Against Denial under Section 8(1)(h) (Police Statistics – Query 1)

The following rulings establish that the mere existence of an investigation is not a sufficient ground for denial; the authority must prove how disclosure would “impede” it. Aggregated statistics are rarely covered.

Case Title	Court/Commission	Core Legal Principle (Wavelength)
B.S. Mathur vs. Public Information Officer	Delhi High Court (2011)	Strict Construction of 8(1)(h): The court held that the PIO must demonstrate with satisfactory reasons how the disclosure would actually hamper the investigation process. General statements are not enough.
R.K. Aggarwal vs. DIT (Investigation)	CIC/Courts (Consistent View)	Investigation Must Be Impeded: A rights-based enactment like the RTI Act must be interpreted liberally. Unless the information would demonstrably endanger the process of investigation (not merely an ongoing inquiry), it cannot be withheld under 8(1)(h).
Supreme Court in Thalappalam Ser. Coop. Bank Ltd. vs. State of Kerala	Supreme Court (General Principle)	Access to information is the Rule, and exemption under Section 8 is the Exception. Exemptions must be strictly construed.

---

B. Against Denial under Section 8(1)(j) (Public Funds & Official Postings – Queries 2, 4, 5, 7, 8)

The following rulings clarify that information relating to the performance of official duties or expenditure of public funds cannot be classified as “personal information.”

Case Title	Court/Commission	Core Legal Principle (Wavelength)
Girish Ramchandra Deshpande vs. CIC	Supreme Court (2012) (RTI Denials & Prayagraj Police)	Defines “Personal Information”: While the Supreme Court held that service records like ACRs and movable/immovable assets are generally personal, it explicitly notes the exception: information is not exempt if it relates to a “public activity or interest.”
CIC Decision on Duty Roster/Leave Details	Central Information Commission (Consistent View)	Duty/Posting is Public: Denial of information regarding the duty roster and details about the posting/leave of a public servant is incorrect under 8(1)(j) as it relates to public activity/interest.
CIC Decision on Employee Data (Mandatory Disclosure)	Central Information Commission	Mandatory Disclosure: All information an employee furnishes to the employer in fulfillment of mandatory obligations (like posting details, which are mandatory) must be disclosed as it relates to public function.
General Principle for Q2 & Q7 (Expenses):	CIC/Courts (Consistent View)	Public Funds are Public Interest: Expenditure of public funds (like fuel bills and electricity bills of a police station) is directly related to “public activity” and “public interest” and is therefore not protected by 8(1)(j).

---

C. Legal Error (Non-Existent Section 8(1)(3) – Queries 3 & 6)

1. Argument: Simply state clearly that the PIO’s reliance on Section 8(1)(3) for Queries 3 and 6 is an error on the face of the record, as no such exemption exists under the Right to Information Act, 2005.

---

Your next step should be to incorporate these case titles and principles into your final submission or speaking notes. You can assert: “My denial under Section 8(1)(h) is contrary to the principle laid down by the Delhi High Court in B.S. Mathur vs. PIO, which requires a specific justification on how statistics impede investigation, not a general statement.”(RTI Denials & Prayagraj Police)