Challenges in Obtaining Information via RTI are, in fact, on full display in a recent legal battle from Mirzapur, Uttar Pradesh. This blog post therefore breaks down the Second Appeal filed by Mahima Maurya against the Mirzapur Police administration. Specifically, it highlights the gap between the transparency promised by the Right to Information (RTI) Act 2005 and the ground reality of police accountability in Uttar Pradesh.
Key Takeaways
- Mahima Maurya filed a Second Appeal against the Mirzapur Police for failing to provide legal documents and obstructing justice.
- The case highlights systemic issues in the RTI process, namely misleading responses and delays from public authorities.
- Mahima’s RTI seeks clarity on police procedures that denied her the right to file an FIR after sustaining injuries.
- The appeal raises fundamental questions about police accountability and the effectiveness of the RTI Act in Uttar Pradesh.
- Ultimately, Mahima aims to hold authorities accountable while illustrating broader challenges in obtaining information via RTI.
Justice Denied: The Second Appeal of Mahima Maurya Against Police Inaction
As a result, a Second Appeal has been filed before the Uttar Pradesh Information Commission (UPIC). Notably, this is a significant move to uphold democratic accountability.
According to the appellant, Mahima Maurya, the Mirzapur Police Department failed to provide specific legal documents. In addition, she claims the department actively obstructed her path to justice through misleading information and procedural anomalies.
1. The Core Conflict: Procedural “Mockery”
Specifically, the grievance stems from an incident on September 14, 2024. As a result of the incident, the appellant suffered serious physical injuries, including a forehead wound and a suspected bone fracture.
Despite this, she claims the Vindhyachal Police Station refused to register her First Information Report (FIR). Instead, the police registered a Non-Cognizable Report (NCR) under her husband’s name, even though he was allegedly in police custody at the time.
Consequently, this raises a fundamental legal question: can a victim’s right to file an FIR be bypassed by using a relative’s signature while they are in detention?
2. The RTI Trail: Understanding the Challenges in Obtaining Information via RTI
In order to understand the legal basis for the police’s actions, Mahima Maurya filed an RTI seeking specific information:
- Government Orders/Circulars: Specifically, which rules allow a Station House Officer (SHO) to exclude a victim’s name from an NCR/FIR when they are present?
- Legal Justification: Additionally, what legislation makes the police “powerless” to act against offenders when a woman has suffered serious injuries?
- Medical Logic: Finally, why was a medical examination conducted if the police intended to treat the matter as a non-cognizable offense?
3. The Failure of Oversight: More Challenges in Obtaining Information via RTI
Furthermore, these questions reveal the broader challenges in obtaining information via RTI when the very authorities implicated are the ones tasked with responding. Overall, the appeal highlights a systemic failure in the grievance redressal mechanism:
- The PIO’s Response: The Public Information Officer (PIO), Sri Omprakash Singh, provided replies that the appellant describes as “arbitrary and misleading.” Moreover, he failed to produce the actual Government Orders requested.
- The First Appellate Authority (FAA): The appeal to the Superintendent of Police (Somen Varma) was disposed of on January 23, 2025. However, the appellant contends that the FAA merely “justified” the PIO’s shortcomings rather than correcting them.
4. Key Submissions in the Second Appeal
Altogether, the Second Appeal (Registration No. A-20250102248) brings the following points to the Commission’s attention:
- The Delay: Notably, the PIO took nearly three months to provide an “unsatisfactory” reply.
- Coercion Allegations: In addition, the appellant claims her husband was pressured to sign the NCR while under custody (Section 151 CrPC), which undermines the legitimacy of the police report.
- Anarchy in Administration: Finally, the prayer to the Commission states that withholding information promotes “lawlessness and chaos.” Therefore, the appeal argues, this makes a mockery of the law of the land.
The Road Ahead
Given the above, the appellant is now seeking the intervention of the Chief Information Commissioner in Lucknow. Indeed, this case is no longer just about a single incident in Mirzapur. Rather, it is about whether public authorities can be held to the standard of “Right to Reason,” and whether the systemic challenges in obtaining information via RTI can be overcome through appeal.
There is a need of the hour to take harsh steps against the wrongdoer to win the confidence of citizenry and strengthen democratic values. — Mahima Maurya
Preparing for the Hearing
In order to help you prepare for your offline hearing at the Uttar Pradesh Information Commission, here is a structured summary of the legal points and a checklist of necessary documents.
Legal Points for the Hearing
During your hearing, focus on these three core arguments to show that the PIO and FAA failed in their duties — arguments that speak directly to the broader challenges in obtaining information via RTI faced by citizens across the state:
- Violation of Section 7(1): The PIO took nearly 90 days (Oct 14 to Jan 13) to respond, even though the law mandates a response within 30 days. As a result, this delay is a “deemed refusal” under the Act.
- Failure to Provide Specific Records: The RTI asked for Government Orders and Circulars. However, instead of providing these documents, the PIO provided a “status update” on the case. Under the RTI Act, the PIO must therefore provide the records as they exist, not a narrative justifying police action.
- The “Information” vs. “Opinion” Gap: Argue that the PIO’s reply was misleading, since it did not address why a victim was ignored in favor of a husband in custody. Consequently, under Section 19(3), the Commission can penalize the PIO for knowingly giving incomplete information.
Document Checklist for the Offline Hearing
Ensure you have three sets of the following documents (one for the Commissioner, one for the Respondent, and one for yourself):
| Document Type | Description |
|---|---|
| The Original RTI | Copy of the application dated 14/10/2024 (Form 6/1) |
| Proof of Filing | Transaction ID/Receipt of the online filing |
| PIO Reply | The letter/response received on 13/01/2025 |
| First Appeal | Copy of the appeal filed to the SP Mirzapur on 26/11/2024 |
| FAA Order | The order dated 23/01/2025 |
| Evidence of Injury | Copies of the medical examination/hospital certificates from CHC Vindhyachal to prove the “cognizable” nature of the offense |
| Identity Proof | Aadhar Card or any government-issued ID |
Strategy for the Hearing
- Be Concise: Since Commissioners handle many cases, open with: “The PIO failed to provide the specific Government Orders requested and instead provided a misleading status report after a 90-day delay.
- Request Penalty: Additionally, explicitly ask the Commission to invoke Section 20(1) to impose a penalty on the PIO for the delay and for providing misleading information.
- Demand Directions: Finally, ask the Commission to direct the PIO to provide the exact circulars governing the registration of FIRs/NCRs for women victims.
Contact and Reference Details
For reference, below are the essential contact details, application IDs, and web links related to the case — useful for tracking status and preparing for the hearing at the UP Information Commission (UPIC).
1. Application and Appeal Identifiers (Challenges in Obtaining Information via RTI)
| Level | Registration/Transaction ID | Date of Filing |
|---|---|---|
| RTI Application (6/1) | SPMZR/R/2024/80012 | 14/10/2024 |
| Payment ID | DGPOFR20240000001223 | 14/10/2024 |
| First Appeal (19/1) | SPMZR/A/2024/60042 | 26/11/2024 |
| Second Appeal (19/3) | A-20250102248 | 27/01/2025 |
2. Contact Details (Public Authorities) (Challenges in Obtaining Information via RTI)
Public Information Officer (PIO):
- Name: Sri Omprakash Singh (ASP Operation)
- Mobile: 9454401105
- Email:
asp-op.mi@up.gov.in - Office: Superintendent of Police, Mirzapur (Pin: 231001)
First Appellate Authority (FAA): (Challenges in Obtaining Information via RTI)
- Name: Abhinandan Singh (Superintendent of Police, Mirzapur)
- Mobile: 9454400299
- Email:
spmzr-up@nic.in
3. Uttar Pradesh Information Commission (UPIC)
To contact the Commission directly for hearing schedules or to check the status of the Second Appeal (A-20250102248): (Challenges in Obtaining Information via RTI)
- Address: 7/7A, RTI Bhawan, Vibhuti Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh – 226010
- Phone: 0522-2724930
- Official Website: upsic.up.gov.in
- Technical Helpline (RTI Online): 0522-7118629
- Helpline Email:
onlinertihelpline.up@gov.in
4. Important Web Links (Challenges in Obtaining Information via RTI)
- Track Second Appeal Status: UPIC Case Inquiry
- View Weekly Cause List (Hearing Dates): UPIC Cause List
- Official RTI UP Portal: rtionline.up.gov.in
This case illustrates the recurring challenges in obtaining information via RTI faced by citizens across Uttar Pradesh — delayed responses, incomplete disclosures, and appellate authorities reluctant to hold the original PIO accountable. Facing a similar challenge? Share the details in the comments below.original PIO accountable. Facing a similar challenge? Share the details in the comments below. Information via RTI: a Mirzapur woman’s second appeal exposes police stonewalling and PIO delay tactics in UP.”contact details?
Facing a similar challenge? Share the details in the box below, and our team of experts will do their best to help.