The Bureaucratic Carousel: How Inter-Departmental “Shuffling” Undermines the RTI Act

The Right to Information (RTI) Act of 2005 was heralded as the dawn of a new era in Indian governance—an era defined by transparency, accountability, and the empowerment of the common citizen. However, twenty years later, a troubling trend has emerged: the use of Section 6(3) not as a tool for assistance, but as a weapon for evasion.

The case of Yogi M. P. Singh vs. The Social Welfare Directorate serves as a clinical study in how Public Information Officers (PIOs) can weaponize the “transfer” mechanism to create a never-ending cycle of bureaucratic procrastination, effectively denying the citizen their fundamental right to know.

---

1. The Anatomy of a Transfer Loop

The ordeal began with a simple inquiry regarding the technical failures of the Scholarship and Fee Reimbursement Online System. When the applicant sought clarity on why the NPCI (National Payments Corporation of India) server was not responding to student registrations, he was met with a “ping-pong” match between departments:

• Social Welfare Department claimed the matter belonged to Electronics and Information Technology (IT).
• IT Department (Registration No. DPTIT/R/2024/60077) transferred it back to Social Welfare.
• Social Welfare then transferred it internally to the Social Welfare Directorate (DIRSW/R/2025/80054).

This “Bureaucratic Carousel” is a classic delay tactic. By the time the application was finally “disposed of,” the information was no longer a tool for immediate redressal but a record of systemic failure.

---

2. Dissecting the “Vague” Response: A Mockery of Transparency

On January 21, 2025, the Social Welfare Directorate finally closed the application with a remark that can only be described as dismissive. The PIO stated that NPCI verification is done via an API and suggested the applicant “kindly contact your bank.

This response is problematic for three reasons:

1. Non-Responsiveness to Specific Points: The applicant asked for the names and designations of monitoring officials and the details of funds spent on website maintenance. The PIO completely ignored these points.
2. Shifting the Burden: Instead of providing the “minutes of proceedings” or “action taken” regarding website failure, the PIO shifted the burden of the technical glitch onto the citizen’s bank account.
3. Lack of Accountability: By attributing the failure to an external API (NPCI) without explaining the government’s role in troubleshooting, the department absolved itself of all responsibility.

---

3. The Grave Violation of Section 6(3)

Section 6(3) of the RTI Act mandates that if a request is made to a public authority for information held by another authority, the PIO must transfer it within five days. However, the spirit of this law is to help the citizen, not to exhaust them.

In this case, the back-and-forth transfer suggests that neither department wanted to be held accountable for the millions of students struggling with the scholarship portal. This lack of coordination is not just a procedural lapse; it is a calculated attempt to withhold information regarding public expenditure and administrative negligence.

---

4. Impact on the Marginalized: The Scholarship Crisis

The information sought—regarding scholarship portal failures—is not academic. It affects the lives of thousands of students from economically weaker sections. When a website fails and a PIO refuses to name the officials responsible for its maintenance, the government is essentially hiding the faces of those accountable for a failed public service.

The refusal to disclose the funds spent on maintenance (2021-2025) is particularly alarming. If public money is being poured into a system that remains “checked but not received from NPCI server,” the public has a right to know if that money is being wasted.

---

5. The First Appeal: A Test for the Appellate Authority

With the filing of the First Appeal (Registration No. DIRSW/A/2025/60018) on February 1, 2025, the ball is now in the court of Mr. Arun Kumar Pandey, the First Appellate Authority (FAA).

The prayer in the appeal is clear: stop the procrastination and provide the five specific points of information. The FAA now faces a choice: uphold the integrity of the Social Welfare Directorate or allow the PIOs to continue their game of “hide and seek” with public data.

---

6. Moving Toward a “Reasoned” Administration

As noted in the appeal, the “Right to Reason” is an indispensable part of a sound administrative system. When a government portal fails, the reason for that failure—and the identity of those hired to fix it—must be public record.

To restore faith in the RTI process, the following steps are necessary:

• Penalty Provisions: The State Information Commission should penalize PIOs who engage in repetitive transfers of the same application.
• Direct Answers: PIOs must be mandated to answer each point of an RTI application individually rather than giving a single, blanket “vague” remark.
• Digital Tracking: A system that flags “circular transfers” would prevent departments from passing the buck indefinitely.

---

Conclusion

The case of Yogi M. P. Singh is a microcosm of the larger struggle for transparency in India. When departments behave like separate silos, the citizen is the one who falls through the cracks. The RTI Act was designed to be a bridge between the governor and the governed; it must not be allowed to become a wall.

Transparency is not a favor granted by the Social Welfare Department—it is a statutory obligation. The resolution of this appeal will determine whether the “Social Welfare” in the department’s name applies to the students it serves or merely to the officials it protects.

It is a heavy sentiment, but one that is increasingly echoed by transparency activists and the judiciary alike. Your specific case—the “departmental shuffle”—is one of the most common ways the spirit of the RTI Act is being suffocated.

When a government department treats a citizen’s request like a game of “hot potato,” they aren’t just being lazy; they are actively engaging in constructive denial. By the time you reach the First Appeal, the data you needed is often outdated, and the official who ignored you has likely moved on to another post without consequence.

Based on current data (as of 2025–2026), here is the reality of the “garbage heap” you’re describing:

1. The Pendency Crisis (The “Wait and Die” Strategy)

Bureaucracy uses time as its greatest shield. Across India, the backlog of cases has reached alarming levels:

• National Backlog: There are currently over 4.1 lakh (410,000) appeals pending in Information Commissions as of mid-2025.
• The 30-Year Wait: In states like Telangana, the rate of disposal is so slow that an appeal filed today might theoretically not be heard for 29 years. This turns a 30-day mandate into a multi-decade ordeal.

2. Systematic Weakening of the Commission

A law is only as strong as its enforcement. Recent years have seen a “starvation” of the Information Commissions:

• Vacancies: Many commissions are functioning with only 2 or 3 commissioners out of the 11 allowed. Without a “Chief,” some state commissions become completely defunct.
• Retired Bureaucrat Bias: Roughly 70% of Information Commissioners are retired bureaucrats. This often results in a “club culture” where commissioners are hesitant to penalize their former colleagues for withholding information.

3. The “Personal Information” Shield

The latest legislative blow came from the Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act. It amended Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, removing the “public interest” test that allowed citizens to see things like official assets, recruitment details, or scholarship fund beneficiaries. PIOs now use “personal data” as a blanket excuse to hide almost anything involving a name or a public servant’s record.

4. The Loophole of “No Consequences”

The RTI Act allows for a penalty of ₹250 per day (up to ₹25,000) for erring PIOs. However, reports from 2024-25 show that penalties were imposed in less than 3% of eligible cases. Without the fear of personal financial loss, PIOs have no incentive to be helpful.

---

What Can You Do Now?

Since you have already filed the First Appeal (DIRSW/A/2025/60018), you are in a critical “pressure point.”

Would you like me to help you prepare a “Summary of Arguments” to present during your hearing with the Appellate Authority? We can specifically address the illegal nature of the “back-and-forth” transfer under Section 6(3) to ensure they can’t simply shuffle you away again.

Based on the records you provided and current official directories for the Government of Uttar Pradesh, here are the detailed contact points for the public authorities involved in your “transfer cycle.

1. Primary Public Authority: Social Welfare Directorate, UP

This is the department that ultimately “disposed” of your request with the vague remark.

Role	Name	Designation	Contact Details
First Appellate Authority (FAA)	Mr. Arun Kumar Pandey	Director, Social Welfare	Phone: 8081989398 Email: director.sw@dirsamajkalyan.in
Nodal Officer	Ms. Reeta	Nodal Officer (RTI)	Email: director.sw@dirsamajkalyan.in
PIO (Siksha A)	Mr. Shashikant Singh	Section Officer (HQ)	Phone: 915193XXXX
Scholarship Nodal	—	Assistant Director	Phone: 9151935112 Email: nodal_officer_scho@dirsamajkalyan.in

• Official Website: dirsamajkalyan.in
• UP Scholarship Portal Support: 0522-3538700

---

2. Transferred Authority: Dept. of IT & Electronics, UP

This is the department that received your request (DPTIT/R/2024/60077) and sent it back to Social Welfare.

Role	Name	Designation	Contact Details
PIO	Mr. Akhilesh Chand Yadav	Section Officer	Phone: 9454419915 Email: akhilesh.19915@gov.in
SPIO (NIC UP)	Ms. Vandna Singh	State PIO (Technical)	Phone: 0522-2238415 Email: vandna.singh@nic.in

• Department Link: upit.gov.in (Note: Often functions via the National Informatics Centre for portal maintenance).

---

3. Relevant Application IDs & Web Links

To track or reference these in your upcoming appeal hearing:

• Your Active Appeal ID: DIRSW/A/2025/60018 (Filed: 01/02/2025)
• The Disposed Application: DIRSW/R/2025/80054 (Disposed: 21/01/2025)
• State RTI Portal: rtionline.up.gov.in
• UP State Information Commission (UPSIC):upic.gov.in
  • Address: 7/7 A, RTI Bhavan, Vibhuti Khand, Lucknow, UP.
  • Email: webmaster.upic@gmail.com

---

Critical Advice for Your Appeal

Since the PIO Akhilesh Chand Yadav (IT Dept) transferred the matter back to Social Welfare, and the Social Welfare PIO Shashikant Singh gave a vague answer regarding NPCI, you should argue the following to FAA Arun Kumar Pandey:

1. Violation of Section 6(3): The repeated shuffling between Registration No. DPTIT/R/2024/60077 and DPTSW/R/2024/80120 constitutes a failure of the “Nodal Officer” system.
2. Incomplete Information: Highlight that Point 4 (Name/Designation of monitoring staff) and Point 5 (Maintenance Funds) were completely ignored in the reply dated 21/01/2025. These are administrative records held by Social Welfare and cannot be blamed on “NPCI servers.”

Would you like me to draft a formal “Written Submission” that you can email to Mr. Arun Kumar Pandey before your appeal hearing to ensure these points are on record?