🚨 A Case of Obstructed Justice: Kiran Singh’s Fight for Transparency Under the RTI Act

Kiran Singh, an appellant from Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh, has been compelled to submit a Second Appeal to the Uttar Pradesh Information Commission (UPIC) after encountering significant hurdles and a concerning lack of cooperation from the Public Information Officer (PIO) and the First Appellate Authority (FAA) at the Police Commissionerate, Lucknow.

This case, registered as UPICR20250000775 (Appeal Registration Number: A-20250200031), highlights a serious lapse in the proper functioning of the Right to Information (RTI) mechanism, denying the applicant a fair and transparent resolution.

---

1. The Initial RTI Application and Misleading Response

Kiran Singh filed her initial RTI application (Section 6(1)) on October 17, 2024, under Registration Number PCLKO/R/2024/80186 (Transaction ID: PROLWR20240000000162), to the Police Commissionerate Lucknow.

The application sought specific details relating to a private road dispute that had involved a police investigation, including:

• Query 1: Information on the private road, specifically whether it was claimed by Shimla Devi W/O Ram Sahai or Vidyavati Devi W/O Radhey Shyam.
  • PIO Response (Dated 22-11-2024): Denied, stating the information concerns the Department of Revenue. (Appellant’s Submission: Police reports declared the land as a common road without proper basis, requiring a reason.)
• Query 2: Provision of law stating that land grabbing by colluding with the police is dealt with under the Civil Procedure Code.
  • PIO Response: Denied, stating the allegations were baseless. (Appellant’s Submission: Police were prejudiced and overlooked allegations of irregularity and corruption.)
• Query 3: Posting details of two police personnel, Kamla Dayal and Manoj Kumar Solanki.
  • PIO Response: Denied, stating the information concerns the police head office. (Appellant’s Submission: Violates Section 6(3) of the RTI Act regarding transfer of application.)

The PIO, Naveen Kumar Singh (ADC), provided an answer that was deemed incomplete, unsatisfactory, false, or misleading.

2. Failure of the First Appeal Process

Dissatisfied with the response, Kiran Singh exercised her right to appeal, submitting a First Appeal (Section 19(1)) on December 18, 2024, under Registration Number PCLKO/A/2024/60212.

The First Appellate Authority (FAA), Anil Kumar Yadav (DC), initially acted appropriately by seeking comments from the concerned PIO on December 21, 2024.

• FAA Action: “Comments sought from Central Public Information Officer dated 21/12/2024. Remarks: – comment pl”
• The Breakdown: The PIO failed to provide the requested comments, effectively obstructing the appeal process.
• Outcome: The FAA provided no answer/order, leaving the appellant without a resolution and denying her a fair and transparent process.

3. The Second Appeal and Relief Sought

As a direct consequence of the frustrating outcome of the first appeal, Kiran Singh filed the Second Appeal (Section 19(3)) with the UPIC on February 1, 2025.

🎯 Relief Sought by the Appellant

The primary relief sought by Kiran Singh is two-fold:

1. Action Against PIO: An order for action against the PIO, Naveen Kumar Singh, under Section 20 of the RTI Act, 2005, for providing misleading and incomplete information.
2. Action Against FAA: An order for disciplinary action against the FAA, Anil Kumar Yadav, for the procrastination of the First Appellate Authority in not entertaining the given online RTI appeal.

The appellant’s submission strongly argues that the PIO violated Section 7(1) by not providing information or a valid reason, and that the FAA cryptically supported this “illegal stand” by not concluding the appeal despite the PIO’s failure to comment.

---

🏛️ Conclusion: Upholding Democratic Values

Kiran Singh’s appeal serves as a critical example of how public authorities, when they fail to adhere to the provisions of the RTI Act, undermine transparency and accountability. Her final plea to the Chief Information Commissioner stresses the need for “harsh steps against the wrongdoer to win the confidence of citizenry and strengthen the democratic values for healthy and prosperous democracy.”

This Second Appeal places the responsibility squarely on the Uttar Pradesh Information Commission to intervene, enforce the law, and ensure that public services are not arbitrarily withheld.

⚖️ Alleged Violations of the RTI Act in Kiran Singh’s Appeal

Kiran Singh’s Second Appeal outlines specific and serious violations of the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005, committed by both the Public Information Officer (PIO) and the First Appellate Authority (FAA) at the Police Commissionerate, Lucknow.

---

1. Violations by the Public Information Officer (PIO)

The PIO, Naveen Kumar Singh, is accused of multiple failures related to providing incomplete, misleading, and unsatisfactory information:

RTI Act Section	Alleged Violation	Details/Consequence
Section 7(1)	Failure to adhere to the time limit for providing information.	The PIO disposed of the application on November 22, 2024, but the appellant argues the action violated this subsection, which mandates a response within 30 days (or 48 hours for life/liberty issues). The complaint is centered on the quality and completeness of the reply, implying the duty under Section 7(1) to furnish complete information was not met.
Section 6(3)	Failure to properly transfer the RTI application.	In response to Query 3 (posting details of police personnel), the PIO denied the information, stating it concerned the police head office. The Act requires that if the requested information is held by another public authority, the PIO must transfer the application (or relevant part) to that authority within five days, which was not done.
Section 20 (Relief Sought)	Providing misleading and incomplete information.	The appellant explicitly seeks action under this section, which allows the Information Commission to impose a penalty on the PIO if they knowingly gave incorrect, incomplete, or misleading information or obstructed the furnishing of information.

---

2. Violations by the First Appellate Authority (FAA)

The FAA, Anil Kumar Yadav, is accused of obstructing the resolution process by failing to pass a final order on the First Appeal:

RTI Act Section	Alleged Violation	Details/Consequence
Section 19(1) (Duty of FAA)	Failure to dispose of the appeal with an order.	The FAA’s role is to review the PIO’s decision and pass a reasoned order. The FAA sought comments from the PIO but failed to conclude the appeal, even though the PIO did not submit the requested comments.
Procrastination/Obstruction	Failure to adhere to the time limit for disposing of the appeal.	Section 19(6) requires the FAA to dispose of the appeal within 30 days or within 45 days for reasons to be recorded in writing. The appeal was filed on December 18, 2024, and the FAA provided no answer/order. The appellant argues this inaction amounted to procrastination and failure to “entertain” the appeal, effectively supporting the PIO’s illegal stand.
Disciplinary Action (Relief Sought)	Failure to perform statutory duty.	The appellant requests an order for disciplinary action against the FAA for not fulfilling his statutory duty to decide the appeal.

The contact information and web link for the Uttar Pradesh Information Commission (UPIC), which is the body handling Kiran Singh’s Second Appeal, are as follows:

🌐 Official Website

• Website Link:https://upsic.up.gov.in/
  • (You can file Second Appeals (19(3)) and check the status of your case on this official portal.)1

---

📧 Email Contacts

The UPIC provides specific email IDs for different functions:

• General/Technical Inquiries (Webmaster):
  • webmaster-upic[at]up[dot]gov[dot]in
• Public Information Officer (PIO) Section:
  • jansu-section[dot]upic[at]up[dot]gov[dot]in
• Office Phone Number:
  • 0522-2724930²

---

📍 Address

The physical address for the commission, as mentioned in the appeal documents and official records, is:

• Uttar Pradesh Information Commission (UPIC)3
  • 7/7A, RTI Bhawan, Vibhuti Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh, PIN Code-226010⁴