RTI Second Appeal: A Citizen’s Struggle for Justice and Transparency in Mirzapur
Introduction
The Right to Information Act, 2005 was enacted to promote transparency and accountability in the functioning of public authorities, ensuring that citizens have the right to access information that affects their lives and governance.
However, when officials ignore their responsibilities under this law, it not only violates the rights of citizens but also undermines the very essence of democracy and the trust placed in public institutions.
This legislative framework aims to empower individuals, yet the failure of authorities to comply with it can lead to a sense of disenfranchisement among the populace, creating a significant barrier to social justice.
This blog post highlights the compelling case of Mahima Maurya, a determined resident of Godasar village, Mirzapur district, who has taken a stand against such negligence.
She has courageously filed a second appeal before the Uttar Pradesh Information Commission (UPIC), seeking to obtain the information that has rightfully been denied to her.
This action comes after experiencing disappointment and frustration while being denied information by both the Public Information Officer (PIO) and the First Appellate Authority (FAA), illustrating the ongoing struggles that individuals face in exercising their rights under the RTI framework.
Timeline of Events
1. The Incident
On 14th September 2024, Mahima Maurya was allegedly brutally assaulted by three individuals:
- Subham Kushwaha (S/O Manoj Kushwaha)
- Manoj Kushwaha (S/O Rambali Kushwaha)
- Saroja Devi (W/O Manoj Kushwaha)
Despite the severity of the assault, the police registered only a Non-Cognizable Report (NCR No. 0104/2024) under Sections 115(2) and 352 of the IPC. Shockingly, Saroja Devi, one of the alleged attackers, was excluded from the report. This raises serious concerns about bias and manipulation by the police.
2. Medical Negligence
Mahima was taken to the Community Health Centre, Vindhyachal, where a medical examination was conducted. However:
- The medical report was not provided to her.
- No X-ray was conducted, despite her broken finger.
- She was prescribed medicines from private stores, indicating possible collusion or negligence.
Later, she sought treatment at Tej Bahadur Sapru Hospital, Allahabad. An X-ray confirmed a bone fracture. This contradicted the earlier medical handling.
3. RTI Application and Appeals
To seek justice and transparency, Mahima filed an RTI application on 01 October 2024 (No. SPMZR/R/2024/60182), requesting detailed information regarding the processes and actions taken by the authorities in response to various incidents that raised concerns about accountability and governance.
In her application, she emphasized the importance of transparency in public administration and highlighted specific cases that demanded scrutiny, aiming to uncover any discrepancies or lapses in duty.
By utilizing the Right to Information Act, Mahima hoped to not only shed light on her own situation but also inspire others who might feel powerless in the face of bureaucracy, ensuring that their voices could be heard and that justice could prevail.
- Name and posting details of the investigating officer.
- Copy of the medical report.
- Reason for not conducting an X-ray.
- Copy of the investigation report.
- Timeline for completion of the investigation.
When no response was received, she filed a first appeal on 16 November 2024 (No. SPMZR/A/2024/60039). Again, no action was taken.
Second Appeal to the Information Commission
On 15 January 2025, Mahima filed a second appeal (Appeal No. A- 20250101221) with the Uttar Pradesh Information Commission, citing: the lack of response to her initial requests for information, which was crucial in her quest for transparency regarding local governance and administrative procedures.
Mahima emphasized the importance of the Right to Information Act in holding authorities accountable, and how her repeated attempts to seek clarification on specific issues related to her community’s welfare were either ignored or dismissed without valid reasons.
Through this second appeal, she aimed not only to obtain the information she sought but also to highlight the systemic failures in the process that undermine the very essence of what the RTI law stands for.
- Non-compliance by the PIO (Sri Om Prakash Singh, ASP Operations, Mirzapur).
- Negligence by the FAA (Abhinandan Singh, Superintendent of Police, Mirzapur).
- Violation of Sections 6(1) and 19(1) of the RTI Act.
She emphasized that the inaction reflects a deliberate effort to suppress information. It aims to protect the accused. It also seeks to deny justice to a victim of violence.
Legal and Ethical Dimensions
This case raises several critical issues:
1. Violation of RTI Act
Both the PIO and FAA neglected to respond within the legally mandated timeframe, violating not only the standards set forth by regulatory guidelines but also the expectations of transparency and accountability that govern public agencies.
This oversight demonstrates a lack of commitment to upholding the legal obligations that ensure timely communication with the public and affected stakeholders, thereby undermining trust in the processes meant to safeguard citizens’ rights and access to information.
The failure to adhere to these regulations raises significant concerns about the effectiveness and reliability of oversight mechanisms designed to protect public interests.
- Section 7(1) – requiring a response within 30 days.
- Section 19(1) – requiring the FAA to dispose of the appeal within 45 days.
2. Police Misconduct
The exclusion of an accused is an issue that poses questions about the fairness and integrity of the legal proceedings.
The custody of the victim’s husband is another issue that complicates the situation further, raising concerns about the potential bias and influence on the victim’s testimony.
In addition, the withholding of medical evidence is also a significant concern, as it undermines the foundational principle of transparency within the investigation.
These issues collectively suggest serious misconduct that could jeopardize the entire case.
They show partiality by the police, indicating that there may be a lack of impartiality in the handling of evidence and the treatment of all parties involved, further eroding public trust in the justice system.
3. Medical Irregularities
The failure to conduct an X-ray and prescription of private medicines show medical negligence, as it indicates a lack of proper assessment and care that any patient deserves in a medical setting.
Such oversights can lead to exacerbated health issues, ultimately putting the patient’s well-being at serious risk.
Furthermore, the circumstances surrounding this case suggest possible collusion with the accused, raising concerns about the integrity of the medical practitioners involved and whether they are prioritizing financial gain over patient health.
This situation necessitates a thorough investigation to ensure accountability and restore trust in the healthcare system.
Prayer and Relief Sought
Mahima has requested the Commission to:
- Direct the PIO to supply the requested information promptly.
- Start disciplinary action against the PIO and FAA for dereliction of duty.
- Guarantee accountability in the police and medical departments involved.
Conclusion
Mahima Maurya’s case is not just about a denied RTI application—it is about a citizen’s fight against systemic injustice that permeates various levels of governance and administration.
Her persistence in seeking information is a testament to the power of the RTI Act, which serves as a crucial tool for transparency and accountability in a democratic society.
It also shows the resilience of ordinary citizens, who often face an uphill battle against bureaucratic indifference and apathy.
The Uttar Pradesh Information Commission must uphold the law, not merely as a formality, but as a foundational principle that safeguards the rights of individuals.
They have to guarantee that justice is not denied, reinforcing the belief that a fair and just society is attainable, and that every voice, regardless of its source, deserves to be heard and respected in the pursuit of truth and equity. That same fight extended all the way to the top: the DGP office provided misleading information to Mahima Maurya when she pressed her case at the state level.
Facing a similar challenge? Share the details in the box below, and our team of experts will do their best to help.