Wrong Number, Wrong Action? RTI Filed Against Haryana Police Over Misdirected Legal Warrant
In a surprising turn of events involving judicial orders and digital privacy, a Right to Information (RTI) application has been filed against the Director General of Police (DGP) Haryana, Panchkula. The applicant, Mahesh Pratap Singh (alias Yogi M. P. Singh), alleges that the Haryana police subjected him to repeated harassment by sending a judicial warrant to his WhatsApp—despite him having no connection to the case.
The Core Issue: A Case of Mistaken Identity?
The matter stems from a court order dated March 30, 2024, issued by Shri Anshuman, Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Bhiwani. The order involved a conditional arrest warrant in the case of Dharmender vs. Sahara India Pariwar.
According to the RTI application:
- The applicant, Yogi M. P. Singh, is neither the Decree Holder (DH) nor the Judgment Debtor (JD) in this case.
- The actual Judgment Debtor is Sahara India Pariwar.
- Despite being a third party, the applicant received nine calls (including WhatsApp calls) and a copy of the warrant via WhatsApp from Haryana Police personnel.
The Privacy Concern: Where Did the Data Come From?
A central theme of the grievance is the source of the applicant’s contact information. Mr. Singh points out that his mobile number is not mentioned on the official court order sheet. This raises a significant question: How did the police obtain a private citizen’s number to serve a warrant for a case in which they are not a party?
Timeline of Actions Taken
Before filing the RTI, the applicant sought redressal through several channels:
- Public Grievance Portal: A complaint was lodged (Registration No:
GOVHY/E/2024/0003604). - SP Investigation: The Superintendent of Police, Bhiwani, investigated the matter and submitted a report to the DGP Haryana on June 25, 2024.
- RTI Filing: Dissatisfied with the clarity of the resolution, the applicant filed a formal RTI on January 31, 2025, seeking specific details on how his data was handled.
Information Requested Under the RTI Act
The RTI application seeks transparency on five specific points from the DGP’s office:
- Accountability: Names and designations of the staff who handled the SP Bhiwani’s investigation report.
- Internal Processing: Official “notings” (internal comments) made by the DGP’s office regarding the report.
- Action Taken: A formal “Action Taken Report” (ATR) regarding the misdirected communication.
- Source of Information: The specific source from which the police personnel obtained the applicant’s mobile number.
Current Status of the Application
As of February 2025, the application is officially registered (Reg No: 001394/2025) and is currently Pending at the office of the SPIO-cum-DSP, Head Office, Panchkula. Under Section 7(1) of the RTI Act 2005, the department is required to provide the information within 30 days.
Why This Matters
This case highlights the growing intersection of digital policing and privacy. While using WhatsApp to serve notices can expedite legal processes, this incident underscores the risks of:
- Procedural Errors: Targeting the wrong individual can lead to unnecessary mental harassment.
- Data Privacy: The unauthorized sourcing of personal contact numbers by law enforcement remains a sensitive legal gray area.
The response from the Haryana Police will be crucial in determining whether this was a simple clerical error or a deeper breach of protocol.
Based on the detailed RTI application and judicial documents provided, here is an analysis of the core issues involving the Haryana Police and the misuse of digital communication platforms.
Core Issue: Unauthorized and Misdirected Digital Service of Warrant
The central grievance revolves around the improper service of a conditional arrest warrant on a person who is not a party to the litigation. While the court order specifically directed the SHO to execute warrants against the Judgment Debtor (JD), Sahara India Pariwar, the police instead targeted Mahesh Pratap Singh (Yogi M. P. Singh), a third party with no connection to the case.
Key Discrepancies and Procedural Violations
1. Misidentification of Parties
- The Case: Dharmender vs. Sahara India Pariwar (EXE-614-2021).
- The Order: Issued on March 30, 2024, by Civil Judge Anshuman, directing a conditional warrant for the arrest of the JD if they fail to pay Rs. 15,725.
- The Error: Despite the applicant being neither the Decree Holder (DH) nor the Judgment Debtor (JD), he was contacted 9 times by police personnel, including two WhatsApp calls.
2. Violation of Supreme Court Guidelines on WhatsApp Service
Recent judicial rulings emphasize that police cannot serve legal notices or warrants via WhatsApp.
- The Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil vs. CBI (2025) clarified that WhatsApp service is not a substitute for the formal modes prescribed under the CrPC or the new Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).
- Official notices must be delivered properly, such as in person or by registered post, to ensure transparency and accountability.
3. Data Privacy and Sourcing Concerns
A critical point raised in the RTI is the unauthorized sourcing of the applicant’s mobile number.
- The applicant notes his number is not on the court’s order sheet.
- This suggests police may have used informal or unauthorized methods to obtain his contact data, leading to what he describes as mental harassment.
Summary of the RTI Application (Reg No: 001394/2025)
Filed on January 31, 2025, the applicant seeks specific accountability from the DGP Haryana office:
- Points 1 & 3: Names and designations of staff who handled the initial grievance report from SP Bhiwani.
- Point 2: Official “notings” (internal file comments) regarding the investigation report.
- Point 4: A formal Action Taken Report (ATR) on the misconduct.
- Point 5: Disclosure of the source from which the police obtained his private mobile number.
Status of Action
- Grievance Status: A formal grievance (GOVHY/E/2024/0003604) was lodged on May 10, 2024.
- Police Investigation: An investigation was conducted by the Superintendent of Police, Bhiwani, and a report was submitted to the DGP Haryana on June 25, 2024.
- RTI Status: As of late January 2025, the application is pending with the SPIO-cum-DSP at the DGP Head Office, Panchkula.
Haryana police sent a warrant notice on WhatsApp to Yogi M. P. Singh, a prominent figure in the political arena, despite the fact that he is neither a designated District Head (DH) nor a Junior Delegate (JD). This unusual method of communication raised eyebrows among political analysts and legal experts alike, as it underlines the evolving landscape of law enforcement methods in the digital age. The decision to use a messaging platform for such serious legal matters has prompted discussions on the validity and implications of digital communication in the context of formal legal notifications.
It is common for authorities to withhold this specific information, often citing exemptions under the RTI Act, but you have clear legal avenues to challenge this lack of transparency.
Based on the documentation provided and current Indian legal standards, here is an analysis of why they may be withholding it and how you can compel them to disclose the source.
1. Why They Might Be Withholding the Information
Public authorities often use Section 8 of the RTI Act to deny information regarding their internal sources.
- Section 8(1)(g): They may claim that disclosing the source would “identify the source of information or assistance given in confidence for law enforcement”.
- Section 8(1)(j): They might argue it is “personal information” that has no relationship to public activity.
- The Rebuttal: However, as a victim of misdirected legal action and harassment (9 calls), you can argue that public interest outweighs these exemptions under Section 8(2). Furthermore, the Supreme Court has held that privacy is a fundamental right under Article 21, and any state intrusion must be backed by a clear law and a legitimate aim.
2. Your Strongest Legal Arguments
- Lack of Judicial Authorization: Since your number is not on the official court order from Civil Judge Anshuman, the police had no legal mandate to obtain or use your private data for this case.
- Violation of Service Protocols: The SHO was directed to execute warrants against Sahara India Pariwar, not you. Using a private mobile number found through informal means to “serve” a warrant via WhatsApp is a procedural violation.
- Fundamental Right to Privacy: In Justice K.S. Puttaswamy vs. Union of India, the Supreme Court declared that police cannot touch your personal data without a valid legal justification.
3. Recommended Steps to Compel Disclosure
If the PIO does not disclose the source, you should escalate the matter through these specific channels:
| Action | Authority | Purpose |
| First Appeal | First Appellate Authority (FAA) | Challenge the PIO’s refusal. Specifically ask for the “daily diary” (DD) entry or the technical log showing where the number was retrieved. |
| Police Complaints Authority (PCA) | State/District PCA (Haryana) | File a complaint for “Serious Misconduct.” The PCA is specifically designed to investigate police behavior that bypasses due process. |
| Human Rights Commission | NHRC or Haryana SHRC | Report the incident as mental harassment and a breach of privacy by state actors. |
Based on your RTI application and the official records from the Haryana Police, here are the relevant identification details, contact numbers, and official links for your case.
1. Core Application Identifiers
- RTI Application ID:
001394/2025 - RTI Registration Date: January 31, 2025
- Public Grievance ID:
GOVHY/E/2024/0003604 - Court Case ID:
EXE-614-2021(Dharmender vs. Sahara India Pariwar)
2. Key Official Contact Numbers
The following officials are responsible for the departments mentioned in your RTI and grievance:
| Authority / Office | Contact Person / Designation | Phone / Mobile Number |
| DGP Haryana (Panchkula) | Sh. O.P. Singh, IPS (DGP) | 0172-2587529 / 9779822255 |
| SPIO cum DSP (PHQ) | HQ RTI Cell, Panchkula | 0172-2587900-06 |
| SPIO cum DSP (CID) | Purnima Singh, HPS | 7015988564 |
| IGP (Law & Order) | Sh. Kuldeep Singh, IPS | 0172-2585288 |
| Nodal Officer (CPGRAMS) | Sh. Rajiv Rattan, IAS | 0172-2740226 |
| Police Complaint Authority | Helpline (Autonomous Body) | 0172-2772244 |
3. Essential Web Links
To track your status or file an appeal, use these specific Government of Haryana portals:
- RTI Status & Appeals:rtiharyana.gov.in
- Note: Use this to check the status of ID 001394/2025 or file a First Appeal if the 30-day window expires.
- Police Directory:haryanapolice.gov.in/RTI/rtipart9
- Access current mobile numbers and designations of all SPs and DSPs.
- Grievance Status:harsamay.gov.in
- Used to track the progress of your grievance (GOVHY/E/2024/0003604).
- State Police Complaint Authority:spcahry.nic.in
- For filing formal complaints against police misconduct regarding unauthorized data usage.
4. Recommended Next Step
Since your application is currently “Pending” with the SPIO-cum-DSP, Office of Director General of Police, you should wait until March 2, 2025 (30 days from filing).
If the Haryana RTI portal is not accepting your First Appeal, you should immediately switch to the offline/manual filing mode to ensure you do not miss the 30-day statutory deadline.
1. Why the Portal May Be Failing
- Technical Limitation: The online software for certain types of appeals in Haryana is often cited as being “under development” or having no provision for specific follow-up actions like Second Appeals, which may cause errors during First Appeal submissions as well.
- Time Limit: If more than 30 days have passed since you received a reply (or since the 30-day response window expired), the portal may automatically block the “Submit First Appeal” option.
2. How to File Your Appeal Offline (Recommended)
Since the online system is unreliable, you should send a physical copy of your appeal via Registered Post or Speed Post to maintain a legal record of delivery.
Address your appeal to:
The First Appellate Authority (FAA)
Office of the Director General of Police (DGP), Haryana
Police Headquarters, Sector 6, Panchkula, Haryana – 134108
Required Documents to Attach:
- A formal Appeal Letter: Explicitly state that the PIO failed to provide the source of your mobile number.
- Original RTI Application: A copy of your initial application (ID: 001394/2025).
- PIO’s Response: A copy of any partial or unsatisfactory reply you received (if any).
- Proof of Payment: A copy of your original RTI fee receipt.
3. Key Contacts for Escalation
If you need to confirm the receipt of your offline appeal or report the portal issue, use these contacts:
| Office | Designation | Contact Number |
| PHQ Panchkula | IGP/Modernization (Nodal Officer) | 0172-2585760 |
| DGP Office | Staff Officer to DGP | 9654990375 |
| RTI Help Desk | CCTNS PHQ EPABX | 0172-2587900 to 06 |
Important Note on Fees
As per the RTI Act and Haryana State Rules, there is no fee required for filing a First Appeal.
Facing a similar challenge? Share the details in the box below, and our team of experts will do their best to help.