Violation of RTI Act 2005: A Case Study of Lucknow Development Authority

Lucknow Development Authority has set up a troubling precedent of not providing essential information to information seekers under the Right to Information Act of 2005, which is a crucial legislation designed to promote transparency and accountability in governance.
Despite receiving multiple notices from the Uttar Pradesh Information Commission, the authority persists in its refusal to disclose necessary information, leaving many citizens frustrated and feeling powerless in their quest for knowledge.
This lack of compliance reflects poorly on the commitment of the authority to uphold democratic values, as it undermines the public’s right to access information that is vital for informed participation in governmental processes.
Furthermore, this systematic withholding of information raises serious questions about the underlying motivations of the authority and its willingness to operate openly.
The implications of such actions extend beyond individual cases; they contribute to a culture of opacity that can erode public trust in the institutions that are meant to serve them, perpetuating a cycle of disengagement and disillusionment among the very citizens whose interests these institutions are supposed to represent.
By failing to embrace transparency, the Lucknow Development Authority does not just hinder individual seekers but also stifles communal progress and the development of a well-informed and active citizenry.

Author: Yogi M P Singh
Date of Filing: November 5, 2024
RTI Registration Number: LKDPA/R/2024/60706
First Appeal Number: LKDPA/A/2024/60262.

This RTI in LDA, about the above details, is an important document.

---

Introduction

The Right to Information Act, 2005 was enacted by the Government of India as a landmark legislation aimed at enhancing democratic governance. Its purpose is to foster transparency and accountability in public authorities, enabling citizens to access information and hold government officials accountable for their actions.
Nonetheless, even after 19 years of its implementation, certain public officials resist transparency, often citing bureaucratic hurdles or uninformed apprehensions regarding the disclosure of sensitive information. Their actions undermine the spirit of the Act, ultimately hindering the fundamental right of citizens to seek information that affects their lives.
This is especially clear in RTI-related cases like those in the Lucknow Development Authority, where applicants frequently encounter delays and evasive responses, indicating a systemic reluctance to comply with the law. RTI in LDA remains problematic, revealing an urgent need for reforms to ensure that the principles of transparency are genuinely upheld and that the public’s right to information is recognized and respected by all levels of government.

---

Background of the RTI Application

On November 5, 2024, the appellant, Yogi M P Singh, filed an online RTI application seeking specific information regarding an email communication that he believed was crucial for transparency and accountability within the administrative process.
The President’s Secretariat took prompt action by forwarding the email to the Chief Secretary of Uttar Pradesh, which indicates the sensitivity of the request and the importance attributed to it.
Following this, it was subsequently sent to the Lucknow Development Authority (LDA) for further examination.
This sequence of forwarding highlighted not only the bureaucratic workflow but also underscored the ongoing issues with processing RTI requests within LDA, where many applicants face challenges regarding timely responses and comprehensive information, thereby raising concerns about the institution’s commitment to upholding the Right to Information Act effectively.

The application was transferred to the concerned Public Information Officer (PIO), Mr. Atul Krishna, Deputy Secretary, on November 14, 2024. According to Section 7(1) of the RTI Act, the PIO must respond within 30 days. This is counted from when they receive the application. However, by December 8, 2024, no information had been provided, indicating persistent issues with RTI implementation in LDA.

---

Details of Information Requested

The appellant requested the following five points of information:

1. Name and designation of the LDA staff who received the forwarded email.
2. Notings made on the representation by the concerned staff.
3. Details of the staff who processed the email.
4. Action taken report on the representation.
5. Reason for not informing the applicant about the action taken.

---

First Appeal and Hearing

Due to non-compliance, a first appeal was filed on December 8, 2024, with the intent to address serious concerns surrounding the handling of the initial request. The hearing was then scheduled to take place on January 16, 2025, providing an opportunity for both parties to present their arguments.
Although the appellant could not attend the hearing due to unforeseen circumstances, the PIO or their representative was present to respond to the issues raised. However, despite this representation, significant challenges with the RTI in LDA persisted, as lapses and discrepancies in the information provided were still evident, leaving the appellant frustrated and eager for a resolution.
The ongoing issues not only undermined the appeal process but also highlighted systemic problems that needed immediate attention to ensure compliance and transparency in future RTI requests.

Upon scrutiny of the case file, we found that no documentary evidence existed. This lack of evidence does not confirm that the requested information sent to the appellant. It also reflects on RTI in LDA failures.

---

Order of the First Appellate Authority

As a result, the Additional Secretary and First Appellate Officer of LDA issued the following directive about the deficiencies in handling RTI requests in LDA: it has come to our attention that there have been numerous instances where requests have not been processed in a timely manner, leading to unnecessary delays that undermine the transparency and accountability goals set forth by the Right to Information Act.
This situation is not only disappointing but also contravenes the fundamental principles that guide our institution’s operations.
In a bid to rectify these issues, the directive emphasizes the importance of adhering strictly to the stipulated timelines for responses and ensures that all staff members are adequately trained in handling RTI requests effectively, fostering a culture of responsiveness and vigilance in our administrative processes.

“Mr. Atul Krishna Singh, Deputy Secretary/JSU, LVP, is hereby ordered to provide the requested information clearly. He must do this within 15 days from the date of this order to the applicant.”

The appeal, thus, disposed of. It included instructions for compliance in line with the RTI Act requirements. These instructions deal with RTI-related shortcomings in LDA.

---

Conclusion

This case highlights a serious lapse in the implementation of the RTI Act by the Lucknow Development Authority. Despite clear guidelines, the failure to respond within the stipulated timeframe reflects a blatant disregard for transparency and accountability. Such negligence not only undermines the trust placed in governmental bodies by the public but also obstructs citizens’ rights to information, which are fundamental to a functioning democracy. Disciplinary action is a must against officials who violate the RTI Act and its implementation within the LDA, as their inaction can lead to a culture of impunity. This is essential to uphold the integrity and purpose of the law, making RTI in LDA effective. Furthermore, consistent enforcement of penalties for non-compliance would not only deter future violations but also serve as a strong message that transparency is paramount in governance, encouraging other governmental agencies to adhere strictly to the regulations set forth by the RTI Act.

After Chief Secretary offiice it is turn of LDA to provide information