Voluntary disclosure, as described under subsection 1 b of section 4 of the RTI Act 2005, is a critical component in promoting transparency and accountability within government operations.
However, it has become increasingly evident that government staff are often reluctant to engage in the voluntary disclosure of information, resulting in a lack of public awareness regarding important governmental processes and decisions.
This avoidance not only undermines the intent of the RTI Act but also perpetuates an environment of opacity, where citizens remain uninformed about the workings of their government.
The reluctance to disclose information can stem from various factors, including fear of repercussions, lack of awareness about the significance of transparency, or inadequate training on how to effectively share information.
It is essential for government institutions to foster a culture of openness and encourage their employees to embrace voluntary disclosure as a means of building trust and improving citizen engagement.

A Quest for Transparency: Citizen’s RTI on Asset Disclosure by Prayagraj Officials Hits a Privacy Wall

In a representative case, a citizen exercised their right to information to ensure public accountability. An RTI application filed by Yogi M.P. Singh sought details on asset disclosure by officials in Prayagraj. It was met with a firm denial. This situation highlights the perennial tension between public interest and individual privacy. This case serves as a clear example of how government transparency mandates are tested at the ground level.

---

The Premise: A Government Order for Financial Transparency

The foundation of this inquiry was a significant government order, issued on January 4, 2024. Dhananjay Shukla, serving as a Special Secretary to the Government of Uttar Pradesh, played a pivotal role in disseminating vital information throughout the state’s administrative framework. He circulated a comprehensive mandate that was addressed to top officials across the state, aiming to ensure effective communication and implementation of the government’s strategies.

This directive included all District Magistrates and Divisional Commissioners, who are crucial in executing these policies at the grassroots level, thereby facilitating a cohesive approach to governance that aligns with the state’s development goals. Through this initiative, the government sought to reinforce its commitment to transparency and efficiency in its operations, ultimately aiming to enhance the quality of public service delivered to citizens.

The Mandate’s Core Directive:

The order required all officers of the Uttar Pradesh Civil Services (Executive Branch) to file their annual statements. These statements needed to include movable property. They needed to complete this task online. This needed to be done online. They also had to file their statements of immovable property online. They were required to do this through the state’s SPARROW (Smart Performance Appraisal Report Recording Online Window) portal. This directive was a modernization of the old system, aimed at enhancing transparency and streamlining the annual performance appraisal process. The deadline for this voluntary disclosure was set for January 31, 2024.

---

The Citizen’s Inquiry: Seeking Proof of Compliance

In light of this government order, citizen activist Yogi M.P. Singh filed a Right to Information (RTI) request on January 23, 2024, with the Police Commissioner’s Office in Prayagraj. His application registered under the registration number SSPPY/R/2024/60026. It was not just a general query. It was a specific, five-point request to verify the order’s implementation.

The Information Sought:

Mr. Singh requested the following point-wise information:

1. The names and designations of staff who had disclosed their assets by the January 31, 2024 deadline.
2. The names and designations of staff who had failed to disclose their assets by the deadline.
3. Details of any action taken by the Commissioner of Police, Prayagraj, to enforce the government order.
4. Copies of any communications or directives exchanged with subordinate officers regarding the asset disclosure mandate.
5. The name and designation of the specific official are required. This official is responsible for processing and ensuring compliance with this government order within the Commissioner’s office.

The goal was clear. We needed to find out the level of compliance with a state-wide transparency directive. This was within the Prayagraj police department.

---

The Official Response: Information Denied

The request initially acknowledged, and internal correspondence followed. The Nodal Public Information Officer (PIO) works in the office of the Police Commissioner, Prayagraj. The officer forwarded the inquiry for an internal report.

However, the final reply delivered to Mr. Singh was a denial of the requested information. A letter sent via registered post on March 16, 2024. It contained the definitive response from the “Charitra Panjika Lipik Pratham” (Character Roll Clerk I) of the Police Commissionerate.

The report, dated March 14, 2024, stated that the requested information could not be provided. The reason cited was that the information is exempt from disclosure under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005.

The official reply in Hindi noted:

“आवेदक श्री योगी एम०पी० सिंह उपरोक्त द्वारा मांगी गयी वांछित सूचना जन सूचना अधिकार अधि0-2005 की धारा 8 (1) (ञ) से आच्छादित होने के कारण देय नहीं हैं।”

Translation: “The desired information sought by the applicant, Shri Yogi M.P. Singh, PIO can’t supply. As information covered under Section 8(1)(j) of the Right to Information Act, 2005.

---

The Crux of the Matter: Public Interest vs. Section 8(1)(j)

This denial brings us to a frequent battleground in the RTI landscape. Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act exempts:

“Information relates to personal details that have no connection to any public activity or interest. Disclosure would cause an unwarranted invasion of the individual’s privacy…”

The Public Information Officer’s stance is that the names of officers and their compliance status considered as personal information. Disclosing this information would be an invasion of their privacy.

The applicant’s position, as implied by the nature of the request, is clear. They believe that the declaration of assets by a public servant is fundamentally a matter of public interest. It is a cornerstone of anti-corruption measures. It ensures that those in positions of power are accountable to the public they serve. The very existence of the government order mandating this disclosure reinforces its connection to public activity and interest.

What Lies Ahead?

The status of the request is officially “Disposed Of,” but the path for the applicant is not closed. Mr. Singh has the right to challenge the PIO’s interpretation of the law. As indicated by the documents, the next step is to file appeals:

1. First Appeal: You can file an appeal with the First Appellate Authority (FAA). The FAA is a senior officer within the same public authority (the Police Commissioner’s Office).
2. Second Appeal: If the first appeal is unsuccessful, you can make a second appeal to the State Information Commission. It is an independent body that has the final say in such matters.

This case, SSPPY/R/2024/60026, is more than just a single RTI request. It represents a microcosm of the larger struggle for transparency and accountability in governance. The letter of the law often debated and interpreted. These interpretations can either empower citizens or shield the administration.

Commissioner of police must provide the information concerning voluntary disclosure of assets by P.C.S.

PIO, Commissioner of police Prayagraj did not provide information concerning compliance of GO

Second appeal against PIO in office of police Commissioner Prayagraj