Voluntary disclosure of assets by provincial civil servants on the Sparrow portal of the government plays a crucial role in promoting transparency and accountability within public service.
By allowing civil servants to openly declare their assets, the initiative aims to foster trust amongst citizens and ensure that public officials are held to the highest standards of integrity.
The Sparrow portal serves as a user-friendly platform that facilitates this process, ensuring that disclosures are easily accessible for public scrutiny.
This measure not only helps prevent corruption but also reinforces the commitment of civil servants to ethical governance, as they publicly affirm their dedication to serving the community with honesty and responsibility.
Transparency vs. Bureaucracy: The Struggle for Accountability in Mirzapur
The Right to Information (RTI) Act of 2005 was envisioned as a tool to dismantle the “culture of secrecy” within Indian administration. However, as the case of Yogi M. P. Singh vs. Public Information Officer (PIO), Mirzapur demonstrates, the path to transparency is often obstructed by technicalities, jurisdictional hand-offs, and a fundamental misunderstanding of what constitutes “public information.
1. The Core of the Dispute: Asset Disclosure
At the heart of this legal battle is a Government Order (GO) dated January 4, 2024, issued by Special Secretary Dhananjay Shukla. The order directed District Magistrates to ensure that all subordinates within the Uttar Pradesh Civil Service (Executive Branch) voluntarily disclose their movable and immovable assets via the SPARROW-PCS portal by January 31, 2024.
The appellant, Mr. Singh, is not seeking the private financial details of the officers. Instead, he is seeking information regarding administrative compliance:
- Who followed the order?
- Who ignored the order?
- What actions did the District Magistrate take to enforce the government’s directive?
2. The Administrative Rebuttal: “Information Not Available”
The Office of the District Magistrate, Mirzapur, has maintained a consistent stance: they cannot provide the information because the SPARROW portal is managed at the state level using individual IDs and passwords.
In a letter dated January 22, 2025, the PIO argued that since the data is entered directly into an online portal by individual officers, no record of these transactions exists within the physical district office. Furthermore, the PIO categorized these details as “personal information,” which is generally exempt from disclosure under the RTI Act unless a larger public interest is proven.
3. The Appellant’s Objection: Compliance is Not Personal
Mr. Singh’s objection, filed in July 2025, highlights a critical distinction in transparency law. He argues that his RTI application does not ask for the values or locations of the assets (which might be considered personal), but rather for the status of compliance.
His submissions points out:
- Administrative Accountability: The DM was instructed to be “instrumental” in these disclosures. If the DM has no record of who complied, it implies a failure to execute the government’s order.
- The “Prayagraj” Discrepancy: Interestingly, the appellant’s queries reference the District Magistrate of Prayagraj, raising questions about whether this is a template for a broader investigation into regional administrative negligence.
- Digital Barriers: The appellant notes that the Mirzapur Collectorate has not provided an option to submit RTI applications via the official portal, forcing citizens to rely on traditional, often slower, methods of communication.
4. The Commission’s Intervention
The Honorable State Information Commissioner, Shakuntala Gautam, has taken a procedural approach. In the hearing on January 31, 2025, the Commission noted the absence of both parties during the video conferencing session.
The Commission has ordered the PIO to:
- Resolve the appellant’s objections according to the Uttar Pradesh RTI Rules, 2015.
- Provide a disposal report before the next hearing date.
- Ensure the appellant is kept informed of all communications held within the “paper book” of the case.
5. Challenges to Citizen Participation
A poignant aspect of this case is the human element. Mr. Singh has highlighted his inability to attend video conferences due to hyperglycemia, stating that the “extreme tension” of the hearings causes his health to deteriorate. This brings to light a significant barrier in the “Digital India” era: while technology aims to bridge gaps, the stress of legal confrontation and the complexity of digital systems can alienate the very citizens the law is meant to empower.
6. The Broader Implications for Governance
This case is a litmus test for the “SPARROW” (Smart Performance Appraisal Report Recording Online Window) system. If a District Magistrate—the highest executive authority in a district—claims to have no knowledge of the compliance status of their own subordinates, it reveals a massive “data silo” problem.
If the government issues a directive for “voluntary disclosure,” but the monitoring of that disclosure is obscured from the public, the “voluntary” nature of the act becomes a shield against accountability rather than a tool for it.
Summary of Sought Information:
| Point | Information Requested | Status |
| 1 | Names of staff who disclosed assets | Pending/Refused |
| 2 | Names of staff who failed to disclose | Pending/Refused |
| 3 | Actions taken by DM for non-compliance | Unclear |
| 4 | Communications between DM and subordinates | Not Provided |
Conclusion: The Road Ahead
The next hearing, scheduled for the 2025-2026 cycle, will determine whether the “personal information” exemption can be used to hide administrative non-compliance. For transparency to be meaningful, the government must move beyond simply creating portals; it must ensure that the fact of compliance is a matter of public record.
As Mr. Singh aptly puts it, the failure to provide this information implies that no action has been taken on the Government Order. Until the Commission mandates a clear distinction between “private asset details” and “public compliance records,” the stalemate in Mirzapur is likely to continue.
RTI Appeal Filed Against District Magistrate Mirzapur for Ignoring Asset Disclosure Mandate
Appellant: Yogi M. P. Singh
📍 Address: सुरेकापुरम कॉलोनी, जबलपुर रोड, मिर्जापुर सिटी
📱 Mobile: 7379105911
📧 Email:yogimpsingh@gmail.com
🗓️ Hearing Date: 04 September 2024
🏢 Hearing Room: S-9
📌 Status: Fixed for further hearing
🏛️ RTI Appeal Exposes Asset Disclosure Negligence in Mirzapur Administration
Appellant: Yogi M. P. Singh
📍 Address: सुरेकापुरम कॉलोनी, जबलपुर रोड, मिर्जापुर सिटी
📱 Mobile: 7379105911
📧 Email:yogimpsingh@gmail.com
📅 Appeal Registration No.: A-20240401203
📁 File No.: S09/A/0728/2024
📍 Diary No.: D-160120250129
🗓️ Hearing Date: 04 September 2024
🏢 Hearing Room: S-9
📌 Status: Fixed for further hearing
📌 Background
The Government Order dated 4 January 2024 was issued by Special Secretary Dhananjay Shukla. All officers of the Uttar Pradesh Civil Services (Executive Branch) need to act in accordance with this order. They must submit their annual movable property details. This includes reporting details accurately. They must also submit their immovable property details. They must provide these details online via the SPARROW portal by 31 January 2024.
The directive was clear. However, the District Magistrate Office of Mirzapur did not provide the requested information. This request was under the Right to Information Act, 2005. This failure prompted a second appeal to the Uttar Pradesh Information Commission.
📜 Key Information Sought
- Names and designations of officers who submitted their asset details by 31 January 2024.
- Names and designations of officers who failed to comply.
- Actions taken by the District Magistrate in response to the government order.
- Copies of communications issued to subordinates regarding compliance.
- Details of staff processing this mandate in the DM office.
⚖️ Legal & Ethical Implications
Failure to comply with asset disclosure:
- Violates transparency norms under the RTI Act.
- Undermines public accountability.
- May attract disciplinary action as per the government order.
The transfer of RTI application from the DM office to the SDM Sadar office without justification further reflects administrative negligence.
🗣️ Appellant’s Statement
“How can it be justified to withhold public services arbitrarily? How can one promote anarchy, lawlessness, and chaos by mocking the law of the land? There is a need to take harsh steps against wrongdoers to win the confidence of citizens and strengthen democratic values.”
— Yogi M. P. Singh
📢 Call to Media & Civil Society
This case demands:
- Media coverage to spotlight administrative opacity.
- Civil society engagement to demand accountability.
- Government intervention to ensure compliance with asset disclosure norms.
🔗 Stay Updated
Track the case on the Uttar Pradesh Information Commission Portal using the registration number A-20240401203.
Based on the documents provided in your correspondence, here are the structured details including the application identifiers, contact information, and relevant digital portals mentioned in your appeal.
1. Case & Application Identifiers
These numbers are essential for tracking your case through the Complaint and Appeal Tracking System (CATS).
- Appeal Number:
S9/A/0728/2024 - KOF Reference:
18 D-160120250129 - Registration ID:
A-20240401203 - RTI Application Date: 16/01/2025
- Hearing Date (Previous): 31/01/2025
- Hearing Date (Current/Upcoming): 04/07/2025 & 06/03/2025
2. Contact Information
The following email addresses and phone numbers are associated with the parties involved in this administrative dispute:
| Name/Entity | Email Address | Mobile Number |
| Mahesh Pratap (Yogi) Singh (Appellant) | yogimpsingh@gmail.com | 7379105911 |
| Shakuntala Gautam (SIC, UP) | hearingcourts9.upic@up.gov.in | Not Provided |
| District Magistrate, Mirzapur | dmmir@nic.in | Not Provided |
| Special Secretary (Dhananjay Shukla) | Not explicitly provided | Not Provided |
3. Web Links & Portals
These are the digital platforms referenced in the government orders and the Commission’s proceedings:
- Asset Disclosure Portal (SPARROW):sparrow-pcs.up.gov.in
- Purpose: Used by Provincial Civil Service officers to upload movable and immovable property details.
- Uttar Pradesh RTI Online:rtionline.up.gov.in
- Note: The appellant noted that the Mirzapur Collectorate has not enabled the option for direct submission here.
- UP Information Commission (CATS):upic.gov.in
- Purpose: To track the status of appeals and view orders passed by the State Information Commissioner.
4. Key Documents Referenced
- Government Order No. 1/114964/2021: Dated 16.11.2021 (Initial order for asset disclosure).
- Government Order Dated 04.01.2024: Regarding mandatory online filling of property details by 31.01.2024.
- PIO Mirzapur Letter No. 772: Dated 22.01.2025 (The response claiming information is not available at the district level).
Would you like me to create a summary of the specific legal arguments you are using to challenge the “personal information” exemption cited by the PIO?
Appeal made against D.M. for not providing information
G.O. Concerning voluntary disclosure of assets by P.C.S. did not reach to D.M. Mirzapur also which implies dereliction of government
Facing a similar challenge? Share the details in the box below, and our team of experts will do their best to help.