🚨 UPHOLDING DEMOCRACY: A Second Appeal Exposes Failures in RTI Implementation

The Case of Yogi M P Singh: A Quest for Transparency in Uttar Pradesh

The Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005, is often hailed as a cornerstone of Indian democracy. It empowers citizens to hold public authorities accountable. Yogi M P Singh recently filed a Second Appeal with the Uttar Pradesh Information Commission (UPIC). The registration number is A-20250102529. This appeal paints a sobering picture of bureaucratic indifference. It also highlights alleged “insolence” towards the Act’s provisions.

This appeal is dated January 31, 2025. It originates from a meticulously documented breakdown in communication. This breakdown spans over two months. It started with an RTI application filed in November 2024. The core of the appellant’s grievance is not just the refusal of information. The Public Information Officer (PIO) and the First Appellate Authority (FAA) outright neglected to even “entertain” his applications.

🛑 The Failure Chain: PIO to FAA

The procedural details of the case highlight a critical lapse at multiple levels within the Medical Health and Family Welfare Department, Mirzapur Division:

• Initial RTI Application (Section 6(1)): Filed on November 10, 2024 (Registration No. DIRMH/R/2024/62190), the application status merely shows “RTI Application RECEIVED.” The appellant argues this clearly indicates the PIO (Joint Director, Mirzapur) neglected to process the inquiry. The PIO also did not give a reply within the stipulated time. The “Answer of P.I.O.” is formally listed as “Not providing Information in Stipulated Time.”
• First Appeal (Section 19(1)): Following the PIO’s silence, a First Appeal was lodged on December 25, 2024 (Registration No. DIRMH/A/2024/61119). Shockingly, the First Appellate Authority (AD, Mirzapur) also demonstrated a similar lack of action. Its status was “RTI APPEAL RECEIVED.” The “Answer of First Appellate Authority (FAA)” was simply noted as “There is no answer.

Mr. Singh makes a powerful submission. He claims that this dual inaction “shows the insolence to the provisions of the right to information act 2005″. It is “tantamount to anarchy in the working of the public authority.” There is a systematic disregard of both the starting inquiry and the next internal appeal. This behavior undermines the spirit and letter of the RTI Act.

---

🔎 The Information Sought: A Probe into Medical Misconduct

The appellant’s inquiry for information was far from trivial. It concerned serious allegations of official misconduct and corruption within the public health system. The focus was primarily on a doctor, Dr. Pradeep Kumar Yadav, and the conduct of hospital authorities. The five-point demand for information targeted:

1. Inquiry Report: The report from the district-level inquiry team instituted by the Chief Medical Officer (CMO), Sant Ravidas Nagar Bhadohi.
2. Challenging the Report: Whether the CMO Bhadohi’s inquiry report was challenged by any of the involved parties before senior authorities.
3. Disciplinary Action Details (Dr. Yadav): Specifics of the disciplinary action taken against Dr. Pradeep Kumar Yadav, as earlier stated before the UP Information Commission by a directorate representative.
4. Action Against Non-Cooperation: Details of the action taken against both Dr. Pradeep Kumar Yadav. The Chief Medical Superintendent of the government hospital in Sant Ravidas Nagar Bhadohi is accused. He allegedly did not cooperate with the inquiry team.
5. Private Practice Nexus: Communication details were exchanged with the CMO Prayagraj. Correspondence also occurred with a private clinic (Chhote Lal Bind hospital) regarding the alleged illegal private practice of government doctors. This practice breaches government rules and license terms.

The information sought relates directly to transparency in internal investigations. It is about accountability for misconduct, for example, private practice by government doctors. It also includes departmental follow-up actions. It addresses the systemic issues that the RTI Act was designed to unearth and resolve.

⚖️ Judicial Precedent and the Plea for Harsh Action

Crucially, the appellant leverages prior commission findings to bolster his current appeal. He highlights an order passed by Information Commissioner Mr. Sudhir Kumar Singh (Case A-20240901687) where a representative from the Directorate of Medical and Health had made specific submissions:

• Dr. Pradeep Kumar Yadav was prima facie found guilty of private practice, and disciplinary action had been initiated.
• The Additional Director, Mirzapur, had been appointed as a subsequent inquiry officer, with the inquiry “undergoing.

This background provides two significant dimensions. First, it confirms the existence and relevance of the information requested. Second, it shows that the very public authority is now failing to respond. This authority had earlier provided information on the topic to the commission. The subsequent silence thus appears to be an active effort to suppress details about an ongoing or concluded disciplinary process. This act is contrary to the fundamental principles of public service.

The appeal concludes with a powerful, emotional plea to the Chief Information Commissioner. The plea urges taking “harsh steps against the wrongdoer.” This is to win the confidence of citizenry and strengthen the democratic values.” He questions how “anarchy, lawlessness, and chaos” can be justified. He asserts that public officials often dilute the RTI Act. This is often motivated by a wish to hide corruption. These actions must be curbed.

The Broader Implication

The case of Yogi M P Singh is a microcosm of a larger challenge facing the RTI regime in India. An application and appeal often reach the “RECEIPT” status and then get no further response. This is the most passive yet effective form of denial. It bypasses the need for the PIO or FAA to cite specific exemptions under Section 8 or 9. Instead, it relies on bureaucratic inertia to defeat the citizen’s right.
The UPIC must direct the immediate release of the sought-after information. It should also impose the mandatory penalty under Section 20(1) of the Act on the defaulting PIO. Additionally, it needs to recommend disciplinary action against the FAA. Non-compliance by senior officials signals a deep-seated culture of unaccountability.
This case presents a unique opportunity. The UP Information Commission can re-assert its authority. It can also restore the citizen’s faith in the ‘sunshine legislation.’

---

Would you like me to focus on a specific aspect of this Second Appeal? For example, I can concentrate on the potential penalties under the RTI Act. Alternatively, I can draft a formal summary of the required actions for the Information Commission.