Non-compliance issues in Uttar Pradesh come into focus in the Mahima Maurya case, where UPHRC orders, RTI requests, and BNSS sections were allegedly ignored. The negligence shown by authorities raises significant concerns about the lack of accountability and transparency in the governing processes. This situation is indicative of a broader pattern where individuals’ rights are overlooked, leading to a growing mistrust among citizens in the enforcement of legal frameworks. The Mahima Maurya case highlights the urgent need for reform in how compliance is monitored and enforced, ensuring that laws and regulations are diligently followed. Moreover, it emphasizes the importance of empowering citizens to seek information and hold public officials accountable, to foster a more just and equitable society where the rule of law is upheld.

Non-Compliance Issues in Uttar Pradesh: Justice Delayed and Procedure Denied in Mirzapur

In a functional democracy, the police force serves as the primary shield for the citizen. However, when that shield becomes a wall of administrative silence and procedural obfuscation, the citizen is left in a state of legal limbo. Indeed, this report examines one of the clearest recent non-compliance issues in Uttar Pradesh: the case of Mahima Maurya vs. the District Police of Mirzapur. Overall, the case highlights a troubling intersection of alleged abuse of power, non-compliance with Human Rights Commission directives, and the apparent misuse of the new Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) framework.

Non-Compliance Issues in Uttar Pradesh: The Genesis of the Grievance

To begin with, the matter originated from a physical altercation on September 14, 2024, involving Mahima Maurya and her brother-in-law, Manoj Kumar Kushwaha. According to the victim, she suffered a mercilessly beating that fractured her finger and caused serious head injuries. Notably, medical records and X-ray reports from the Tej Bahadur Sapru Hospital in Prayagraj support these claims.

Despite the severity of the injuries, which typically warrant the registration of a First Information Report (FIR) for cognizable offenses, the Vindhyachal police allegedly opted for a Non-Cognizable Report (NCR) instead. This distinction, however, is vital: an FIR compels the police to investigate, while an NCR generally does not, unless a Magistrate directs otherwise. This early misstep, in fact, is where the wider non-compliance issues in Uttar Pradesh discussed below begin to take shape.

The UPHRC Intervention and a Clear Non-Compliance Issue in Uttar Pradesh

Consequently, seeking redressal, the complainant approached the Uttar Pradesh Human Rights Commission (UPHRC). In turn, recognizing the gravity of the allegations, the Commission issued a directive (Diary No 4672/IN/2024) on October 21, 2024. Specifically, the order was clear: the Superintendent of Police (SP), Mirzapur, was to look into the matter and “do the needful in accordance with law” within six weeks, with an intimation to the complainant.

As of January 2025, however, that six-week window has long since closed, and this delay sits at the heart of the wider non-compliance issues in Uttar Pradesh that this case exposes. Ultimately, the core of the current grievance lies in this silence. Notably, the “Right to Reason” — a principle the Apex Court upholds as indispensable to both judicial and administrative systems — has been ignored so far. As a result, therefore, the victim is left asking: Why did the Commission not enforce compliance with its own order?

RTI Non-Compliance: A Related Transparency Issue in Uttar Pradesh

To pierce the veil of silence, first, the complainant filed a Right to Information (RTI) application (Reg No: SPMZR/R/2024/60208) on November 14, 2024. Under Section 7(1) of the RTI Act 2005, moreover, the Public Information Officer (PIO) must provide a response within 30 days.

However, over 60 days have now passed, and the information seeker still remains in the dark. Indeed, this failure to respond is not merely a delay; rather, it constitutes a statutory violation, and another entry on the growing list of non-compliance issues in Uttar Pradesh surrounding this case. Furthermore, it suggests a systemic effort to shield the details of the investigation — or lack thereof — from public and legal scrutiny.

Legal Incongruities: The BNSS and Misapplied Sections

Also, one of the most technical and alarming aspects of this case involves the alleged misuse of legal sections in the police reports sent to the Chief Minister’s Office. Specifically, the police cited:

• Section 115 of BNSS: Pertains to assistance in relation to orders of attachment or forfeiture of property.
• Section 352 of BNSS: Pertains to oral arguments and memorandums in court.

As the complainant rightly points out, these sections function as procedural tools for the Court, not as penal sections for registering a crime at a police station. Consequently, using “court-stage” sections to categorize a physical assault (NCR No. 104/24) raises serious questions about the legal literacy — or the intent — of the local police. If the police register reports under sections that do not apply to the incident, after all, it effectively renders the legal document toothless — and yet another example of the non-compliance issues in Uttar Pradesh that this case brings to light.

Section Cited	Actual Purpose under BNSS	Relevance to Assault
Section 115	Property Attachment/Forfeiture	None (Relates to financial/property crime)
Section 352	Oral Arguments in Court	None (Relates to trial procedure)

The “Tetra-Polar” Fabric: Allegations of Collusion

Meanwhile, the complainant describes the current situation as a “tetra-polar” failure involving:

1. The Police: For failing to register an FIR for a cognizable injury.
2. Medical/Health Dept: For disregarding the valid medical reports from Prayagraj.
3. Quasi-Judicial Courts: For potentially misusing preventive detention (Section 170 BNSS / 151 CrPC).
4. Victim/Accused Dynamics: For showing bias in how the parties involved were treated.

For example, officials cite the arrest of Mithilesh Maurya from Prayagraj under apprehension of “breach of peace” in Mirzapur as a prime example of “concocted stories.” How, then, can authorities design a case against a person from a different district to commit a cognizable offense in a manner that warrants preventive arrest, while simultaneously downplaying the actual physical assault on the victim?

A Wider Pattern of Non-Compliance Issues in Uttar Pradesh

Taken together, the stalled UPHRC directive, the unanswered RTI application, and the misapplied BNSS sections illustrate why non-compliance issues in Uttar Pradesh extend well beyond a single police station. Indeed, when a state human rights commission’s order can sit unenforced for months, and when a statutory RTI deadline can pass without consequence, the underlying problem is not isolated misconduct but a systemic gap in administrative accountability. In other words, therefore, Mirzapur’s handling of this case is a symptom of a broader compliance failure across the state’s public authorities.

The Demand for Accountability

Overall, the fundamental request of this petition is simple: Provide the Reason.

• Why did officials treat the fractured bone and head injury as a non-cognizable offense?
• Why has the SP Mirzapur ignored the UPHRC’s six-week deadline?
• Why has the PIO failed to fulfill the RTI mandate?

Ultimately, when the police ignore constitutional functionaries like the Human Rights Commission, it erodes the rule of law. Indeed, the complainant is not just seeking a trial; rather, she is seeking the basic administrative honesty required to start the legal process.

Conclusion: Non-Compliance Issues in Uttar Pradesh Put to the Test

Overall, the case of Mahima Maurya thus serves as a litmus test for the Mirzapur administration, and for how the state addresses non-compliance issues in Uttar Pradesh more broadly. Indeed, justice is not only about the final verdict; it is also about the integrity of the process. If officials deny the “Right to Reason,” moreover, the system ceases to be a service to the public and instead becomes a tool for the powerful.

Therefore, the authorities must now act to:

1. Comply with the UPHRC directive immediately.
2. Provide the RTI response as mandated by law.
3. Re-evaluate the medical evidence under senior supervision to ensure the correct penal sections apply.

This latest correspondence, moreover, introduces a grave escalation in the case — moving from simple administrative negligence to allegations of custodial fraud and identity substitution.

Below, accordingly, is a structured analysis of this development, formatted to highlight the severe legal implications of the “Identity Substitution” and “Medical Falsification” allegations.

---

Administrative Fraud: A Deeper Non-Compliance Issue in Uttar Pradesh

Since then, the case of Mahima Maurya vs. State of UP has transitioned from a dispute over police inaction to a matter of criminal conspiracy within the department. According to the latest evidence, moreover, the Vindhyachal police have not only defied the Uttar Pradesh Human Rights Commission (UPHRC) but have allegedly committed “Fraud on the Court,” compounding the non-compliance issues in Uttar Pradesh already on record in this case.

1. The Core Allegation: Identity Substitution

Specifically, the most shocking revelation in the email dated December 27, 2025, concerns the discrepancy between the General Diary (GD) No. 057 and the physical reality of the court production.

• The Record: GD No. 057 states that officials produced Mithilesh Maurya before the Magistrate.
• The Reality: In contrast, the complainant alleges that her husband, Pramod Kumar Kushwaha, actually appeared in the dock, under the false name of Mithilesh.

This, therefore, constitutes a serious offense under the Indian Penal Code (and the corresponding BNSS sections) related to personation and furnishing false information to a public servant. If proven, ultimately, it would invalidate the entire legal proceeding of that day.

2. Documented Falsification of Medical State

Notably, the police records claim the parties were “free from fresh injuries” on September 14, 2024. This, however, directly contradicts the clinical findings from T.B. Sapru Hospital, Prayagraj, which documented:

• A fractured thumb (Grievous Hurt).
• Head injuries requiring stitches.

By marking the parties as “injury-free,” consequently, the police effectively blocked the path for a Cognizable Offense (FIR). Under the law, moreover, a fractured bone falls under “Grievous Hurt” (Section 320 IPC / Section 117 BNS), which makes registering an FIR — rather than a mere NCR — mandatory for the police.

3. The “Willful Blunder”: Legal Implications

Meanwhile, the term “willful blunder,” which the complainant uses, describes a deliberate attempt to mislead the Commission. Accordingly, the legal consequences for the officers involved are severe:

1. Contempt of Commission: Defying the UPHRC order dated 21/10/2024.
2. Forgery (Section 465 IPC): Creating a false General Diary entry.
3. Fabricating Evidence (Section 193 IPC): Presenting the wrong person in court to create a false record.

Fact per Police GD	Fact per Victim/Hospital	Legal Violation
Person Produced: Mithilesh	Person Produced: Pramod Kumar	Identity Fraud / Personation
Health: No Fresh Injuries	Health: Fracture & Stitches	Falsification of Records
Offense: Minor Dispute	Offense: Physical Assault	Suppression of Cognizable Crime

4. Path Forward: Resolving These Non-Compliance Issues in Uttar Pradesh

Currently, the prayer to the Commission focuses on forensic and documentary verification. To bring this to a conclusion, therefore, the following steps are critical:

• Signature Verification: The “Production Register” at the Magistrate’s court offers the ultimate evidence. Specifically, comparing the signature of the person produced with the real Mithilesh Maurya’s signature will prove the substitution.
• CCTV Footage: If it exists at the court premises, additionally, this would provide irrefutable proof of who was in the dock.
• Fresh Hearing: Finally, re-opening Case No: 14054/24/55/2024 is necessary to examine these criminal irregularities.

Conclusion: A Systemic Breakdown

When the police record “no injuries” for a woman with a fractured hand and stitches on her head, this is no longer a “mistake” — instead, it amounts to a conspiracy to deny justice. Consequently, the UPHRC and the Superintendent of Police, Mirzapur, must now treat this not as a simple complaint, but as a criminal investigation into the conduct of the Vindhyachal police station.

Based on the case details and official records, therefore, here are the essential contact details for the authorities involved.

1. Uttar Pradesh Human Rights Commission (UPHRC)

• Website: hrcup.org
• Email: uphrc@sancharnet.in / complain@hrcup.org
• Phone (CUG): 9454003726
• Office Numbers: 0522-2726742 / 0522-2726743
• Address: TC-34 V-1, Vibhuti Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh.

---

2. Mirzapur District Authorities

Locally, to address the “Identity Substitution” and “General Diary Forgery” issues, contact:

Office	Designation	Mobile (CUG)	Email
SP Mirzapur	Superintendent of Police	9454400299	spmzr-up@nic.in
ASP City	Addl. SP (City)	9454401104	asp-city.mi@up.gov.in
CO Sadar	Circle Officer (Sadar)	9454401591	co-sadar.mi@up.gov.in
DM Mirzapur	District Magistrate	9454417567	dmmir@nic.in

---

3. State Level Oversight (UP Police HQ)

Since the complainant alleges fraud by the local police, moreover, these higher offices become critical for intervention:

• DGP Uttar Pradesh:
  • Email: dgpcontrol-up@nic.in
  • CUG: 9454400101
• ADG Human Rights (Police HQ):
  • Email: humanrightshq@nic.in
  • CUG: 9454400120
• UP Chief Minister (Jansunwai/IGRS Portal):
  • Website: jansunwai.up.nic.in
  • CM Helpline: 1076

---

4. Important Web Links

• UP Police Officer Profiles: uppolice.gov.in. Use this, for instance, to verify current postings of officers mentioned in the GD.
• HRCNet (Complaint Tracking): hrcnet.nic.in. Similarly, use this to track linked diary numbers 309/IN/2025 and 2149/IN/2025.

A Note on the Date: The records mention dates up to January 2026. Therefore, all future correspondence should use the current year 2026 to avoid any clerical “mistakes” regarding the timeline of events.