🚨 RTI Request Analysis: Seeking Transparency in Mauaima Police Station (Prayagraj)

This post analyzes the details of an Online RTI (Right to Information) request concerning the Police Station Mauaima, District Prayagraj, Uttar Pradesh. The request seeks specific data across several operational and administrative aspects of the police station.

---

📝 RTI Request Overview

The application, filed by Yogi M P Singh on 30/09/2021, was addressed to the Public Authority, the Office of Deputy Commissioner of Police Prayagraj.

Detail	Information
Registration Number	SSPPY/R/2021/60093
Applicant	Yogi M P Singh
Filing Date	30/09/2021
Public Authority	Office of Deputy Commissioner of Police Prayagraj
PIO Concerned	ACP SORAON
Current Status	REQUEST DISPOSED OF (as on 23/01/2025)
PIO’s Reply	सूचना प्रेषित की जा चुकी है। (Information has been sent.)

---

🧐 Core Issues and Information Sought

The primary focus of the RTI is to obtain detailed, specific figures and records for the Mauaima Police Station, covering crime statistics, resource expenditure, and personnel postings.

1. Crime & Preventive Measures Data

This section requests quantitative data on crime registration and preventive actions for the current financial year (as of the filing date, 30/09/2021).

• Number of NCR (Non-Cognizable Reports) registered.
• Number of FIR (First Information Reports) registered.
• Number of cases culminated into preventive measures under sections $107/116/151$ of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.PC).

2. Administrative Expenditure (Figures Only)

The applicant sought financial figures related to routine operational expenses for two specific fiscal years, 2019-20 and 2020-21.

• Fuel Expenses: Details of diesel and petrol expenditure.
• Electricity Bills: Details of government funds spent on electricity bills.
• Maintenance Funds: Details of funds spent on painting and whitewashing in the last five years.

3. Police Personnel Postings

This part focuses on obtaining specific service details of the officers and staff currently posted at the police station.

• Station House Officer (SHO): Posting details and date of joining the district Prayagraj.
• Sub Inspectors (SIs): Posting details (with name) and date of joining the district Prayagraj.
• Police Constables (PCs): Posting details (with name) and date of joining the district Prayagraj.

---

💡 Conclusion: Transparency and Accountability

The RTI request is a strong example of a citizen utilizing the Right to Information Act to foster transparency and accountability in a local government functionary—the police station. By seeking specific, verifiable figures on crime, expenditure, and staffing, the applicant aimed to gauge the efficiency and resource allocation at the Mauaima Police Station.

The request has been marked as “DISPOSED OF” with the official response indicating that the information has been provided to the applicant.

🔍 Update on RTI Registration No. SSPPY/R/2021/60093

The search results reveal significant details about the application filed by Yogi M P Singh concerning the Mauaima Police Station. While the exact content of the initial reply (23/01/2025) for registration number $SSPPY/R/2021/60093$ is not directly provided, the context strongly suggests the information provided by the PIO was deemed incomplete, evasive, or misleading by the applicant, leading to further appeals and a sustained effort for transparency.

Here is a breakdown of the findings related to this, and similar, RTIs:

1. The Initial Outcome and Subsequent Appeal

• RTI Status: The original request $SSPPY/R/2021/60093$ was officially marked as REQUEST DISPOSED OF on 23/01/2025, with the PIO stating that the information has been sent (सूचना प्रेषित की जा चुकी है।).
• The Appellant’s Stance: Subsequent posts referencing this case and similar RTIs filed by the same applicant targeting Mauaima Police Station (like those seeking FIR/NCR numbers and personnel details) indicate that the official response was challenged.
• Appeal Reply: A post about a related appeal shows the First Appellate Authority (FAA) disposed of the appeal, stating the information was provided as per rules on 23.01.25 and dismissing the appeal as “not maintainable.”

2. Core Issues in Contention (Denial of Information)

Further appeals and submissions by the applicant against the Prayagraj Police Commissionerate highlight the common grounds on which information was denied or obfuscated:

• Denial of Personnel Details (Points 3, 4, 5): The PIO reportedly denied information on the posting details of the SHO, Sub Inspectors, and Constables by invoking Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act (information that relates to personal information and has no relationship to any public activity or interest).
  • Applicant’s Counter: The applicant argued that the transfer and posting of police personnel, who are public servants, are matters of mandatory disclosure under Section $4(1)(b)(ix)$ and are not “personal information” in this context.
• Denial of Expenditure details (Fuel, Electricity, Painting – Points 2, 6, 7): The PIO also denied details like the electricity bill of the police station, attempting to classify it as “personal information.
  • Applicant’s Counter: The applicant questioned how the expense on government vehicles and the electricity bill of a public police station could be considered private, personal information of any individual.
• Evasive Replies: In other instances related to Mauaima Police Station, PIOs were accused of sending irrelevant investigation reports (e.g., a land dispute report) instead of providing point-wise answers to the specific questions asked.

3. Current Status of the RTI Battle

The search results suggest the applicant is highly active in pursuing transparency, escalating multiple similar cases to the Uttar Pradesh Information Commission (UPIC), including filing Second Appeals against the dismissals by the First Appellate Authority. The larger issue is the alleged systemic denial of public information by misapplying exemptions of the RTI Act, particularly concerning police administrative and operational data.

🛡️ Analysis of RTI Exemptions: Section 8(1)(j) and 8(1)(h)

The Prayagraj Police’s alleged denial of information likely rests on two key exemption clauses of the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005. Understanding these clauses, and how courts have interpreted them, is crucial to assessing the merit of the denial.

1. Section 8(1)(j): Personal Information and Public Interest

This is the most common clause used to deny information related to government employees, and it appears to have been used to deny the personnel posting details (SHO, SIs, PCs).

📜 The Clause

Section 8(1)(j) exempts:

Information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individu¹al… (Unless the2 PIO/Appellate Authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information.)

⚖️ Judicial Interpretation (The Contention)

• Police’s Argument: The police likely argued that the specific date of joining, promotion, transfer/posting history, and name of individual Constables/SIs are personal service details that have no relationship to the public activity of the police station.
• Applicant’s Counter (as per CIC/Court Rulings): The applicant’s position is stronger based on Central Information Commission (CIC) and Supreme Court precedents:
  • Public Activity: An employee’s performance, attendance, duty roster, and posting location are generally considered related to their public activity as a government servant.
  • Mandatory Disclosure (Sec 4): The RTI Act itself (Section 4(1)(b)(ix)) mandates public authorities to disclose the particulars of its officers and employees, including their powers and duties. The position and location of a police officer are fundamental to this.
  • Supreme Court Caveat: While the Supreme Court has ruled that an employee’s detailed service history (like ACRs/APARs, income tax returns, or private disciplinary details) is personal information, the mere posting status (who is the SHO and when they joined the district/station) is often viewed as a necessary check on their tenure and performance, and therefore, in the public interest.

2. Expenditure Details (Fuel, Electricity, Painting Funds)

The alleged denial of financial figures (fuel, electricity, painting costs) is likely an incorrect application of Section 8(1)(j) or any other exemption.

• Public Fund Accountability: Funds spent on government property and operations (like a police station building’s maintenance or vehicle fuel) are public expenditure.
• No Personal Information: This expenditure has no relationship to the personal information of an individual employee. These records are held by the public authority (the Police Commissionerate) and must be disclosed to ensure the optimum use of limited fiscal resources and hold the government accountable, as intended by the RTI Act.

3. Section 8(1)(h): Impeding Investigation or Prosecution

Although the applicant did not seek information on a specific, ongoing case, this clause is sometimes broadly and incorrectly applied by police to deny all crime-related information.

📜 The Clause

Section 8(1)(h) exempts:

Information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders.

⚖️ Judicial Interpretation (The Contention)

• Police’s Argument (Possible): If the data on NCR/FIR/Cr.PC $107/116/151$ cases was still being compiled, the PIO might claim that its disclosure would impede the ongoing process of record-keeping or statistics compilation.
• Applicant’s Counter (and Judicial Standard): The courts have consistently held that the mere existence of an investigation or prosecution is not sufficient to invoke this exemption.
  • The Burden of Proof: The Public Authority (Police) must provide cogent and satisfactory reasons and show how the release of the information would actively hamper or impede the investigation process.
  • Statistical Data: General statistics on registered cases (NCR/FIR numbers) and preventive actions ($107/116/151$) are usually considered standard public information and should not be covered by this exemption unless they relate to a specific, ongoing, and sensitive investigation.

---

Conclusion

The denial of the expenditure details and the general crime statistics seems highly questionable and likely invalid under the provisions of the RTI Act. The denial of personnel details depends on the specific level of detail sought, but the core information (name, designation, and place of posting) of a public servant is generally required to be disclosed or is a mandatory Section 4 disclosure.

SPIO in office of SSP Prayag Raj did not provide information even after 2 months 23 days and earlier also did not provide cryptically. C.O. Soraon denied information arbitrarily by making mockery of the provisions of the Right to Information Act 2005 ipso facto. First appeal submitted against arbitrary denial of information by C.O. Soraon under Right to Information Act 2005 reflects anarchy

S.H.O. MauAima District Prayagraj did not provide information to information seeker as sought quite obvious from SSPPY/R/2021/60093

S.S.P. Prayagraj/ Allahabad through its PIO may provide the information concerned with funds spent in police station Mauaima