🚨Mahima Maurya’s RTI Appeal Highlights Police Action & Transparency Concerns in Mirzapur

Key Takeaways

• Mahima Maurya’s RTI Appeal highlights issues with police accountability and transparency in Mirzapur.
• The appeal alleges the Public Information Officer provided incomplete and misleading information about the police actions related to NCR No. 104/2024.
• Key concerns include the conversion of BNS criminal sections to BNSS. There are also details on Sub Inspector Vinod Kumar Yadav’s involvement and threats.
• The police response confirmed the NCRs. Still, it did not tackle direct questions. This led the appellant to view the response as inadequate.
• The First Appellate Authority (FAA) is now reviewing the appeal, underscoring the ongoing struggle for accountability under the RTI Act.

The Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005, is a vital tool for promoting transparency and accountability. This is an analysis of a recent RTI appeal. It specifically examines Mahima Maurya’s RTI Appeal, filed with the Superintendent of Police Office, Mirzapur. It highlights significant concerns about the response provided by the Public Information Officer (PIO).

---

📝 Case Overview Mahima Maurya’s RTI Appeal

The RTI appeal was filed by Mahima Maurya on January 15, 2025, marking a significant step in her pursuit for justice and transparency.
This appeal is intricately connected to an earlier RTI application dated December 6, 2024, which sought clarity on the actions taken regarding a non-cognizable report filed by the local police.
The main issue of the appeal revolves around a crucial claim that has far-reaching implications.
It alleges, with substantial grounds, that the PIO provided “Incomplete, Misleading or False Information” when responding to her previous inquiry about police action taken on a Non-Cognizable Report (NCR).
This alleged misinformation not only undermines the credibility of the police force but also raises serious questions regarding the accountability mechanisms in place, thereby fueling Mahima’s determination to seek a thorough investigation into the matter and ensure that the rights of citizens are upheld.

• Appellant Name: Mahima Maurya (Gender: Male – Note: The form lists “Male” despite the name “Mahima Maurya” and the PIO order addressing “श्रीमती महिमा मौर्या” (Smt. Mahima Maurya))
• Public Authority: Superintendent of Police Office, Mirzapur
• Appellate Authority: ABHINANDAN (Designation: MIRZAPUR)
• Ground for Appeal: Provided Incomplete, Misleading or False Information.

---

⚖️ Allegations and Core Issues

The appeal centers on seven specific points of information sought, primarily about NCR No. 104/2024 and the subsequent police action.
These points are crucial for understanding the context and implications of the police’s response to the case, as they highlight the procedural steps taken, the rationale behind the decisions made, and how they align with established law enforcement protocols.
Additionally, the appeal aims to clarify any discrepancies in the provided information, ensuring that all actions taken are transparent and accountable.
By meticulously examining these aspects, we seek to promote justice and uphold the principles of democratic governance, as well as to empower citizens in their right to seek information and challenge decisions that may appear unjust or arbitrary.

1. Action on NCR and Counter-NCR and Mahima Maurya’s RTI Appeal

The appellant sought details of the action taken on NCR No. 104/2024, dated 14/09/2024, under Sections 115(2) and 352 of BNS (Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita – Voluntarily causing hurt and Assault/Criminal Force). The police report indicates a reciprocal NCR (No. 105/2024) was also filed by the opposing party.

2. Conversion of Sections: BNS to BNSS

A major point of contention is the alleged conversion of the BNS criminal sections. These sections are reportedly being changed into Sections 170/126/135 of BNSS (Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita).

• BNS Sections 115(2) & 352 deal with non-cognizable offences of voluntarily causing hurt and assault.
• BNSS Sections 170/126/135 are generally linked to preventive measures. These include arrest to prevent a cognizable offence (Sec 170). They also involve security for keeping the peace (Sec 126). Additionally, there is an inquiry into the truth of information about security (Sec 135). The appellant questions the legal provision that permits this conversion and calls it “arbitrary and inconsistent.” Mahima Maurya’s RTI Appeal searching the truth.

3. Sub Inspector’s Details and Alleged Threat

The appellant also sought:

• Posting and joining details of Sub Inspector Vinod Kumar Yadav.
• Details of any case registered against the applicant at Vindhyachal Police Station. This follows a reported threat by SI Vinod Kumar Yadav.

---

👮 Police Response Analysis

The PIO’s response, based on a detailed report from Circle Officer Nagar, Mr. Vivek Jawla, and Sub Inspector (SI) Vinod Kumar Yadav, essentially confirmed the NCRs and the preventive action taken under the BNSS.
In their thorough investigation, both officers meticulously analyzed the circumstances surrounding the incidents, gathering evidence and testimonies to ensure a comprehensive understanding of the situation.
Their findings not only corroborated the initial claims but also highlighted the importance of implementing effective measures to prevent any future occurrences.
The PIO emphasized the significance of these actions, underscoring the commitment to maintaining public safety and order within the community.

• The report acknowledges the two NCRs. It states the parties are relatives with an old rivalry. These relatives engaged in a fight.
• SI Vinod Kumar Yadav confirmed taking preventive action under Sections 170/126/135 BNSS to handle the tension.
• Crucially, the police advised the applicant to “seek shelter in the court of law instead of police.” They also alleged the applicant is a repeat filer of RTI applications. Furthermore, they claim the applicant is trying to register a false case based on an old injury.

The appellant views this response as a “concocted story.” It signifies a failure to give proper, consistent information. The appellant demands that the PIO be directed to give the requested details. They also demand an end to the “arbitrary report” practice. Mahima Maurya’s RTI Appeal is working as tools against rampant corruption in police.

---

🔑 The Path to Accountability

This case underscores the persistent challenge of using the RTI Act to hold law enforcement accountable in a landscape riddled with obfuscation and evasion. While the police confirmed the NCR and the preventive measures implemented, they failed to provide satisfactory answers to the direct questions posed by concerned citizens.
Instead of fostering dialogue, they strategically avoided discussing the SI’s posting history, which could shed light on potential biases or misconduct. Additionally, they neglected to explain the legal basis for the sectional change, leaving many in the dark about the rationale behind such decisions.
Instead, they opted for an opinionated counter-narrative, directing the applicant to seek recourse through the courts rather than cooperating fully in the investigative process. This creates an intimidating atmosphere for individuals trying to exercise their rights under the act.
The First Appellate Authority (FAA), ABHINANDAN, is now tasked with reviewing the appeal, a critical step in the ongoing struggle for justice. This review plays a pivotal role in ensuring the principles of transparency and accountability under the RTI Act are upheld and respected by all stakeholders involved.
Here this question arises as to whether Mahima Maurya’s RTI Appeal will create the path of justice in this anarchy, where accountability often seems elusive and the proper exercise of authority frequently disregarded. It is imperative for the society at large to closely monitor the outcomes of this case, as it may set important precedents for future interactions between citizens and law enforcement agencies.

---

Do you want me to find the equivalent section numbers in the old Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC)? This includes BNSS Sections 170, 126, and 135. This will give further context on the nature of the preventive action.

Mirzapur police is not registering FIR of Mahima Maurya is reflection of justice

Struggle of woman for justice in U.P.