RTI Appeal overlooked, leaving many concerned about the transparency and accountability of the system. The situation escalated when DG Karmik took it under teeth, emphasizing the need for a thorough investigation and prompt resolution. Many stakeholders are now anxiously waiting for an update, as the implications of this oversight could affect numerous individuals who rely on the Right to Information for clarity in governance.
The RTI Mirage: How “Flimsy Grounds” and Bureaucratic Circularity are Killing Transparency in Uttar Pradesh
The Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005, was hailed as the “Magna Carta” of Indian democracy. It was designed to be the ultimate weapon in the hands of the common man to fight the “jungle fire” of corruption. However, as the case of Yogi M.P. Singh vs. The Medical and Health Directorate (DIRMH) reveals, the act is being systematically dismantled by Public Information Officers (PIOs) through a strategy of “procedural exhaustion” and misleading replies.
The Anatomy of a “Flimsy Denial”
In the matter of Registration Number DIRMH/R/2024/62121, the response from the PIO is a textbook example of administrative evasion. When an information seeker asks for an Action Taken Report (ATR) regarding corruption or non-cooperation by high-ranking officials (like the CMO of Prayagraj), the standard response has become: “The matter is covered by Investigation/IGRS.
This is not just a lazy reply; it is a legal violation. Under the RTI Act, there is no blanket exemption for “IGRS” or “ongoing investigations.” Unless the PIO can prove under Section 8(1)(h) that disclosing the information would specifically impede the investigation, they are legally bound to provide it. By using “Investigation” as a shield, the PIO is essentially saying that the government’s internal processes are above the law of the land.
The Time-Traveler’s Defense: A Mockery of the Appellate Process
Perhaps the most egregious aspect of this case is the First Appellate Authority’s (FAA) disposal of the appeal on February 18, 2025. The FAA claimed that the information had already been provided via a letter dated October 23, 2024.
There is a glaring logical fallacy here: The RTI application in question was filed on November 4, 2024.
How can a letter sent in October satisfy a request made in November? This “time-traveling” defense suggests that the appellate authorities are not even reading the applications. They are simply recycling old reference numbers to close files and reduce their pendency numbers on the portal. This is a mockery of the provisions enshrined in the Act and a direct insult to the citizen’s right to know.
Corruption and Collusion: Protecting the Status Quo
The heart of this specific RTI inquiry involves allegations against Dr. Pradeep Kumar and the non-cooperation of the Chief Medical Officer (CMO) of Prayagraj. When a citizen seeks the “tenure details” of a Joint Director or the communication exchanged with the State Information Commission, they are looking for accountability.
When the PIO refuses to provide the tenure details (Point 5 of the application), it raises a vital question: What is there to hide about a public servant’s posting dates? By withholding such basic, non-sensitive data, the Public Authority reinforces the suspicion that corruption is not just rampant but is actively protected by the very officers meant to monitor it.
The Human Cost of Transparency Failure
Behind every RTI application is an “aggrieved” person—in this case, Jai Chand Maurya—who has authorized the seeker to fight for justice. When the Medical and Health Directorate fails to provide information, they aren’t just ignoring a form; they are:
- Denying Justice: Without the investigation report, the victim cannot move the court or higher authorities.
- Encouraging Malpractice: When doctors found “prima facie guilty” of private practice (as mentioned in the October letter) see that the administration is stalling RTI queries, they feel emboldened to continue their activities.
- Eroding Public Trust: If the state’s highest health directorate cannot be transparent, the common man loses faith in the entire democratic framework.
Violation of Section 7(1): The 30-Day Myth
The Act mandates that information be provided within 30 days. In this case, the application filed on 04/11/2024 was “disposed of” on 13/02/2025—nearly 100 days later. This delay is a blatant violation of Section 7(1).
Under the law, any delay beyond 30 days should automatically trigger:
- Section 7(2): Deemed refusal of the request.
- Section 20(1): A mandatory penalty of ₹250 per day on the PIO.
Yet, in Uttar Pradesh, these penalties are rarely invoked with the rigor required to change bureaucratic behavior. The PIOs have calculated that the “cost of silence” is lower than the “cost of transparency.”
The Way Forward: Taking “Serious Cognizance”
To restore the credibility of the RTI mechanism in the state, three immediate “systemic reforms” are essential:
1. Mandatory Penalty Enforcement
The State Information Commission must stop being “lenient” with PIOs. If a reply is delayed beyond 30 days without a valid Section 8 exemption, the penalty must be deducted from the PIO’s salary automatically.
2. Digital Accountability
The RTI portal should be programmed to flag replies that cite dates prior to the application date. Such “illogical disposals” should be automatically escalated to the Chief Secretary’s office.
3. Disciplinary Action for Misleading Replies
Providing a “flimsy ground” like “covered by IGRS” should be treated as professional misconduct. If the information exists, it must be shared unless it threatens national security or individual privacy. Corruption investigations do not fall under these categories.
Conclusion
The RTI Act was not meant to be a paper tiger. It was meant to be a roar that shakes the pillars of corruption. When PIOs in the Medical and Health Directorate use circular logic to deny information, they are not just breaking a law; they are weakening the democracy.
The case of DIRMH/R/2024/62121 is a call to action. It is time for the State Information Commission to take “serious cognizance” and move beyond mere warnings. Transparency is not a favor granted by the government to the citizen; it is a debt that the government owes to the people.
Would you like me to adapt this into a formal “Petition to the Governor” or a “Letter to the Editor” for a local newspaper?
🏛️ RTI Appeal Ignored: A Citizen’s Struggle for Transparency in Uttar Pradesh’s Health Directorate
📌 Appeal Summary
- Appellant: Yogi M P Singh, known for filing RTI appeals rigorously.
- RTI Application Date: 04-Nov-2024
- First Appeal Date: 07-Dec-2024
- Second Appeal Registered: 17-Jan-2025
- Department Concerned: Medical Health and Family Welfare Department, Uttar Pradesh
- PIO: Dr. Arvind Kumar Shrivastava, Joint Director
- FAA: Dr. Raja Ganpati R (IAS), Director Administration
⚖️ Allegations and Violations
- No Response from PIO within the stipulated 30 days. This breaches RTI appeal guidelines. It violates Section 7(1) of the RTI Act.
- No Action by FAA on the first appeal, violating Section 19(1) of the transparency Act.
- Repeated Ignorance of serious issues including:
- Private practice by government doctors.
- Human rights violations in medical negligence cases.
- Lack of cooperation in departmental investigations.
📄 Information Sought
- Action taken reports on communications with DG Medical and Health Services.
- Details of disciplinary actions against CMO Prayagraj and CMS Bhadohi, sought through an RTI appeal.
- Tenure details of Joint Director Dr. A K Shrivastava.
- Copies of communications between the department and the State Information Commission.
🚨 Broader Concerns
- Transparency Failure: Despite 19 years of RTI implementation, officials still ignore its provisions. This negligence undermines the whole purpose of an RTI appeal effectively.
- Corruption Shielding: RTI is being diluted by rampant corruption and bureaucratic apathy.
- Human Rights Overlooked: Medical negligence cases are not being addressed with urgency.
🙏 Prayer to the Commission
- Invoke Section 20 of the RTI Act to penalize the PIO.
- Recommend disciplinary action against the FAA for deliberate inaction.
- Ensure accountability and transparency in handling RTI applications.
To ensure your case is presented professionally for public consumption or legal filing, here is the structured breakdown of the critical application IDs, contact details, and digital trails involved in this matter.
## 1. Key Application Identifiers
The following registration numbers represent the primary trail of your quest for transparency.
| Type | Registration Number | Date of Filing | Status |
| Original RTI Application | DIRMH/R/2024/62121 | 04/11/2024 | Disposed (13/02/2025) |
| First Appeal | DIRMH/A/2024/61071 | 07/12/2024 | Disposed (18/02/2025) |
| Complaint/IGRS Case | 202410502N100260 | Referenced | Under Investigation |
## 2. Directory of Responsible Officers
If you are escalating this matter to the Chief Minister’s Office or the Health Ministry, these are the officials who held “cognizance” of your file.
A. Public Information Officer (PIO)
- Name: Dr. A. K. Shrivastava (Joint Director, Personnel)
- Department: Medical and Health Directorate, UP
- Mobile: 8840868375
- Email:
adcampkarmik@gmail.com
B. First Appellate Authority (FAA)
- Designation: Additional Director (AD), DGMH
- Mobile: 9839112777
- Email:
adcampkarik@gmail.com
C. Nodal Officer (RTI)
- Name: Director Health
- Mobile: 9415121887
- Email:
dgmhsrti@gmail.com
## 3. Web Links & Digital Portals
For tracking current status or filing the next level of appeal (Second Appeal), use the following official portals.
- UP RTI Online Portal: rtionline.up.gov.in(Use this to check status of DIRMH/R/2024/62121)
- UP State Information Commission: upsic.up.nic.in(Crucial for filing the Second Appeal against the “flimsy” disposal by the FAA)
- UP Jan Sunwai (IGRS) Portal: jansunwai.up.nic.in(To track the investigation status of the complaint against Dr. Pradeep Kumar)
## 4. Summary of the Dispute (Point-wise)
- Request: Action Taken Report (ATR) on Letter No. 512 (31.01.2024) regarding illegal private practice and non-cooperation by CMO Prayagraj.
- The Denial: PIO claimed the matter is “covered by IGRS,” which is a violation of Section 7(1).
- The Flaw: FAA disposed of the appeal by citing a letter dated 23/10/2024, despite the application being filed after that date (04/11/2024).
Next Step Recommendation
Since you have all the ID numbers and contact details, would you like me to draft a formal letter to the Principal Secretary (Health) or a Second Appeal to the State Information Commission using this specific data?
Joint Director, DG Karmik must provide information regarding action taken by DGMH
Facing a similar challenge? Share the details in the box below, and our team of experts will do their best to help.