🚨 Grave Delay and Opacity: The Prayagraj Police RTI Case
The handling of RTI Application Registration No. SSPPY/R/2022/60031 by the Prayagraj Police provides a stark example of administrative apathy and the undermining of India’s Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005. Filed on April 22, 2022, the request for basic, public-interest information—including CUG mobile numbers of police personnel and station-level data—was officially disposed of on January 28, 2025, a staggering delay of over 2 years and 9 months.
🏛️ Violation of the Right to Information Act
The delay in responding to the RTI application is a clear and egregious breach of legal mandate.
- Violation of Section 7(1): The Act unequivocally requires the Public Information Officer (PIO) to respond to a request within 30 days of its receipt. In this case, the PIO acted only after the First Appeal was filed, and the final disposal took almost 3 years.
- Undermining Transparency: The fundamental purpose of the RTI Act is to ensure an informed citizenry and promote transparency and accountability in governance. Such a prolonged delay, especially concerning information meant for public contact (CUG numbers), severely damages this principle.
- Administrative Apathy: The timeframe reflects a systemic failure and administrative negligence within the Public Authority, indicating a lack of respect for the citizen’s right to information.
❓ The Issue of Withholding CUG Mobile Numbers
The request specifically sought CUG (Closed User Group) mobile numbers, which are officially allocated to police officers for duty and public contact. The initial reluctance and eventual significant delay in providing this information raise serious concerns about intentional opacity.
- Public Accountability: CUG numbers are a direct point of contact for citizens, vital for reporting crimes, emergencies, or registering complaints. Withholding this information makes it harder for the public to hold officers and police stations accountable.
- Resistance to Scrutiny: The delay in providing names, posting details, and CUG numbers suggests a resistance to public scrutiny, which is contrary to the spirit of a responsible democratic government.
📝 Information Finally Disclosed
Despite the unacceptable delay, the record indicates that some information was eventually sent to the applicant, though the details of when the information was physically delivered are not immediately clear from the reply note. The reply states that the information was sent via registered post (RU 565971414 IN) on January 17, 2023, a date which is itself over 9 months after the original filing.
The disclosed information included:
- CUG Details of Senior Officers: Names and CUG numbers for the Nodal PIO, all Superintendents of Police (SP), and all Assistant Superintendents of Police/Circle Officers (CO).
- Station-Level Information (Sought for Ghoorpur PS): Details on NCR/FIR registration, cases under preventive sections (107/116/151 Cr.P.C.), fuel expenses, posting details of the Station House Officer (SHO), Sub-Inspectors, and Constables, and fund details for painting/whitewashing and electricity bills.
| Officer Category | Number of Officers Listed | Example CUG |
| Nodal PIO | 1 | 9454401015 |
| SPs (Additional/Others) | 6 | 9454401013 – 9454405248 |
| Assistant SP/Circle Officers | 13 | 9454401273 – 9454401722 |
⚖️ Call for Strict Action by State Information Commission
Such a monumental delay, especially one that takes a request from April 2022 to a disposal date in January 2025, demands intervention from the higher authority.
- Imposition of Penalty: The State Information Commission is empowered by Section 20 of the RTI Act to impose a penalty of ₹250 per day of delay, up to a maximum of ₹25,000, on the concerned PIO. Given the egregious delay, the maximum penalty should be considered to deter future non-compliance.
- Recommending Disciplinary Action: The Commission can also recommend disciplinary action against the PIO for persistently failing to perform their duties under the Act.
The integrity of the RTI mechanism rests on the swift, timely, and transparent provision of information. The Prayagraj Police’s response in this case serves as a grave warning about how bureaucratic delays and resistance to transparency can weaken this crucial democratic tool.
That’s an excellent follow-up. The State Information Commission (SIC) has significant authority under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005, primarily under Section 18 (Complaints) and Section 20 (Penalties). This power is designed to ensure compliance, transparency, and accountability.
⚖️ Powers of the State Information Commission (SIC)
The SIC is vested with the powers of a Civil Court during an inquiry and can take punitive as well as remedial action.
1. Power to Inquire and Act (Section 18)
The SIC has the duty to receive and inquire into complaints from any person regarding:
- Failure to Appoint PIO: When a citizen is unable to submit a request because no Public Information Officer (PIO) has been appointed.
- Refusal/Non-Response: If access to information is refused, or no response is given within the specified time limits (e.g., 30 days under Section 7(1)).
- Unreasonable Fees: Being asked to pay a fee the applicant considers unreasonable.
- Misleading Information: Receiving information that is incomplete, false, or misleading.
🏛️ Civil Court Powers
While inquiring into a matter, the SIC has the same powers as a civil court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, including:
- Summoning: Compelling any person to attend and give oral or written evidence on oath.
- Documentation: Requiring the discovery, inspection, and production of documents or things.
- Record Examination: The SIC can examine any record to which the RTI Act applies, and this power overrides any other law.
2. Power to Impose Penalty and Recommend Action (Section 20)
This is the most crucial power for ensuring deterrence and compliance, directly addressing the kind of delay and non-compliance seen in the Prayagraj case.
| Action | Provision (RTI Act) | Details |
| Monetary Penalty | Section 20(1) | The SIC can impose a penalty of ₹250 per day until the application is received or the information is furnished. The total penalty cannot exceed ₹25,000. This fine is imposed personally on the PIO (or Deemed PIO) and is deductible from their salary. |
| Grounds for Penalty | Section 20(1) | Imposed if the PIO, without reasonable cause, has: * Refused to receive an application. * Delayed information release (e.g., not within 30 days). * Malafidely denied the request. * Knowingly given incorrect, incomplete, or misleading information. * Obstructed the furnishing of information. |
| Disciplinary Action | Section 20(2) | The SIC can also recommend disciplinary action against the PIO to the Public Authority under the service rules applicable to the officer. |
| Burden of Proof | Section 20(1) | The burden of proving that the PIO acted reasonably and diligently is on the PIO themselves. |
3. Power to Secure Compliance (Section 19(8))
The SIC can issue directives to the Public Authority to secure compliance with the provisions of the RTI Act. This includes ordering the Public Authority to:
- Provide Access: Give access to the information in a particular format.
- Compensate: Require the public authority to compensate the complainant for any loss or detriment suffered due to the delay or non-disclosure.
- Appoint PIO: Direct the public authority to appoint a PIO or Assistant PIO where none exists.
- Systemic Change: Direct the authority to make necessary changes to its practices regarding record management and maintenance.
- Training: Enhance the provision of training on the right to information for its officials.
🌐 Relevant Web Link (For Reference)
The full text of the RTI Act, 2005, containing the powers of the SIC under Chapter V (Sections 18, 19, and 20) is available on the India Code website:
- India Code – The Right to Information Act, 2005 (See Chapter V):
Facing a similar challenge? Share the details in the box below, and our team of experts will do their best to help.