This blog post breaks down the recent legal challenge filed by Mahima Maurya against the Mirzapur Police administration. It highlights a critical gap between the transparency promised by the Right to Information (RTI) Act 2005 and the ground reality of police accountability in Uttar Pradesh.

---

Justice Denied: The Second Appeal of Mahima Maurya Against Police Inaction

In a significant move to uphold democratic accountability, a Second Appeal has been filed before the Uttar Pradesh Information Commission (UPIC). The appellant, Mahima Maurya, alleges that the Mirzapur Police Department has not only failed to provide specific legal documents but has also actively obstructed the path to justice through misleading information and procedural anomalies.

1. The Core Conflict: Procedural “Mockery”

The grievance stems from an incident on September 14, 2024. Despite suffering serious physical injuries—including a forehead wound and a suspected bone fracture—the appellant claims the Vindhyachal Police Station refused to register her First Information Report (FIR).

Instead, the police registered a Non-Cognizable Report (NCR) under the name of her husband, who was allegedly in police custody at the time. 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: A Battle for Documentation

To understand the legal basis for the police’s actions, Mahima Maurya filed an RTI seeking specific information:

• Government Orders/Circulars: Which rules allow a Station House Officer (SHO) to exclude a victim’s name from an NCR/FIR when they are present?
• Legal Justification: What legislation makes the police “powerless” to act against offenders when a woman has suffered serious injuries?
• Medical Logic: Why was a medical examination conducted if the police intended to treat the matter as a non-cognizable offense?

3. The Failure of Oversight

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,” failing 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. The appellant contends that the FAA merely “justified” the PIO’s shortcomings rather than correcting them.

4. Key Submissions in the Second Appeal

The Second Appeal (Registration No. A-20250102248) brings the following points to the Commission’s attention:

• The Delay: The PIO took nearly three months to provide an “unsatisfactory” reply.
• Coercion Allegations: The appellant claims her husband was pressured to sign the NCR while under custody (Section 151 CrPC), undermining the legitimacy of the police report.
• Anarchy in Administration: The prayer to the Commission states that withholding information promotes “lawlessness and chaos,” making a mockery of the law of the land.

---

The Road Ahead

The appellant is now seeking the intervention of the Chief Information Commissioner in Lucknow. This case is no longer just about a single incident in Mirzapur; it is about whether public authorities can be held to the standard of “Right to Reason.”

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

---

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, you should focus on these three core arguments to show that the PIO and FAA failed in their duties:

1. Violation of Section 7(1): Highlight that the PIO took nearly 90 days (Oct 14 to Jan 13) to respond, whereas the law mandates a response within 30 days. This delay is a “deemed refusal” under the Act.
2. Failure to Provide Specific Records: Your RTI asked for Government Orders and Circulars. Instead of providing these documents, the PIO provided a “status update” on your case. Under the RTI Act, the PIO is required to provide the records as they exist, not create a narrative reply to justify police action.
3. The “Information” vs. “Opinion” Gap: Argue that the PIO’s reply was misleading because it did not address why a victim was ignored in favor of a husband in custody. Under Section 19(3), you are asking the Commission to 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: Commissioners handle many cases. Start by saying: “The PIO failed to provide the specific Government Orders requested and instead provided a misleading status report after a 90-day delay.
• Request Penalty: Explicitly ask the Commission to invoke Section 20(1) to impose a penalty on the PIO for the delay and for providing misleading info.
• Demand Directions: Ask the Commission to direct the PIO to provide the exact circulars that govern the registration of FIRs/NCRs for women victims.

Below are the essential contact details, application IDs, and web links related to your case. This information will be useful for tracking your status and for your upcoming hearing at the UP Information Commission (UPIC).

---

1. Application and Appeal Identifiers

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)

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):

• Name: Abhinandan Singh (Superintendent of Police, Mirzapur)
• Mobile: 9454400299
• Email: spmzr-up@nic.in

---

3. Uttar Pradesh Information Commission (UPIC)

If you need to contact the Commission directly for hearing schedules or to check the status of your Second Appeal (A-20250102248):

• 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

• Track Second Appeal Status: UPIC Case Inquiry
• View Weekly Cause List (Hearing Dates): UPIC Cause List
• Official RTI UP Portal: rtionline.up.gov.in

---

Would you like me to create a draft of the “Statement of Facts” mentioned earlier, using these specific application numbers and contact details?

secappMahima