Introduction: Unconditional Apologies in Court

Explore the implications of unconditional apologies in court with Yogi M. P. Singh’s recent experience in India’s RTI framework, where he skillfully navigated the complexities of legal accountability and ethical considerations involved in such apologies. Notably, this case highlights how an unconditional apology may significantly impact the perception of justice, while also providing reparative potential for victims, and shaping the subsequent evolution of legal practices in India. By thoroughly examining the cultural and societal reactions to Singh’s case, we can gain deeper insights into the broader repercussions of this legal strategy, as well as its influence on future court decisions and public trust in the justice system.

⚖️ The Cost of Truth: RTI Activist Tenders Unconditional Apology After Court Summons

The pursuit of transparency often comes at a price. Moreover, recent events highlight the bureaucratic hurdles in India’s Right to Information (RTI) framework. Additionally, they also reveal procedural flaws. Prominent activist Yogi M. P. Singh was compelled to submit an unconditional apology to the Uttar Pradesh Information Commission (UPIC). This incident illustrates the significance of Unconditional Apologies in Court, especially when addressing the concerns of presiding officers. Consequently, this came after the presiding officer took exception to his argumentative tone during a hearing concerning a long-delayed RTI application.

---

The Core Conflict: A Case of Misdirected Accountability

The entire controversy stems from a straightforward RTI request; however, it became tangled in a web of jurisdictional confusion. Consequently, this led to unnecessary delays and a heated court hearing.

1. The RTI Request and the Initial Misstep

The activist’s original application was filed on November 25, 2019. In this context, it sought detailed information from the Executive Officer of the Municipality, Mirzapur City. Specifically, this information concerned development schemes, work booklets, invoices, and funds for the Sangmohal ward over a five-year term.

Crucially, the request was initially handled by the District Magistrate’s Office, Mirzapur; subsequently, they registered it under registration number DMOMR/R/2024/80016. This registration took place following a transfer from the Directorate of Local Bodies (DOUDV/R/2019/60044).

2. Failure to Follow Due Procedure

The activist’s primary contention is with the Public Information Officer (PIO) at the District Magistrate’s office; consequently, this issue represents the crux of the procedural failure. (Unconditional Apologies in Court)

• The Obligation: Section 6(3) of the RTI Act 2005 mandates something specific. Consequently, the PIO in the District Magistrate’s office had a mandatory duty. This duty was not only required to be fulfilled as per the Act, but it was also essential in ensuring transparency. Specifically, the duty entailed transferring the application to the Executive Officer, Municipality of Mirzapur City. This was necessary because they held the requested information.
• The Error: The Tahsildar Sadar, Hemant Kumar, allegedly stated that he could not handle the matter. Instead of transferring the application, he delayed the process further.

This chain of events clearly shows a lack of procedural understanding. There is also a lack of accountability at the administrative level. These issues are forcing the activist to file a Second Appeal (A-20241100325) before the Information Commission.

---

🏛️ The Courtroom Drama: Apology Demanded

During the hearing for the Second Appeal (योगी एमपी सिंह versus जन सूचना अधिकारी – राजस्व विभाग ,सदर तहसील), the presiding officer attentively listened to the activist’s arguments. Moreover, the officer deemed these arguments to be in an “up tone”. This characterization suggests that the arguments were likely fueled by the ongoing frustration stemming from a procedural delay spanning years.

The activist immediately issued an oral apology, but the court found it insufficient and demanded a written, unconditional apology.

“To error is human. Most respected madam- The appellant tendered an apology during the hearing before the court. However, the most respected presiding officer was not satisfied with it. The officer asked for a written apology in the matter.” – Excerpt from the apology letter.

The Unconditional Apology

Dated February 5, 2025, the activist subsequently submitted a formal, written apology to the presiding officer, Ms. Shakuntala Gautam, thereby assuring his respect for the court and earnestly seeking pardon for his conduct.

---

🛑 Broader Implications: The State of RTI in Uttar Pradesh

This incident, while seemingly about a procedural lapse and a courtroom altercation, underscores a deeper systemic issue. The activist’s accompanying notes point to a widely known problem:

• Flawed Implementation: The Right to Information Act, 2005, is, unfortunately, not implemented properly in Uttar Pradesh. Consequently, the condition of transparency is described as “deeply flawed” and, moreover, “discouraging.”
• Suppression of Truth: The activist highlights the irony in a democracy. “Indeed,” they assert, “those who speak the truth are often punished.” This serves to reflect a bitter truth. “Consequently,” they continue, “truth is suppressed” and “accountability is evaded.”

The activist was a citizen exercising his fundamental right to freedom of expression. However, he found himself apologizing. It was not for misfiling the RTI, but rather for his frustration over an administrative failure. Moreover, the District Magistrate’s office was arguably responsible for this failure.

---

A Final Note on Democracy and Accountability

The necessity for an RTI activist to apologize unconditionally indeed reveals a challenging environment for transparency advocates. Furthermore, this situation becomes even more apparent when the administrative fault lies with the Public Information Officer, who failed to perform their statutory duty under Section 6(3). Moreover, this situation serves as a stark reminder of the continuous struggle that advocates face. Therefore, we must work diligently to ensure the RTI Act functions as intended, as it serves as a potent tool for holding the powerful accountable.

That’s an excellent idea. Consequently, based on your request, I have gathered the full text of the key legal provision. Furthermore, this information places the activist’s case in its proper legal context.

Here is the information you requested:

---

1. The Legal Mandate: Section 6(3) of the RTI Act, 2005

The procedural failure in the activist’s case centres on non-compliance with Section 6(3) of the Right to Information Act, 2005. Indeed, this section clearly outlines the mandatory duty of a Public Information Officer (PIO) when, for instance, an application is misdirected. Consequently, this non-compliance warrants Unconditional Apologies in Court.

Full Text of Section 6(3)

6. Request for obtaining information.

(3) Where an application is made to a public authority requesting for an information,—123456

(i) which is held by another public authority; or^789101112

(ii) the subject matter of which is more closely connected with the functions of another public authority,^131415161718

the public authority, to which such applic1920ation is made, shall transfer the21 application or such part of it as may be appropriate to that other public authority and inform the applicant immediately about such transfer22:2324

The transfer of an application pursuant to this sub-section must be made as soon as practicable. However, it should not take more than five days from the date of receipt of the application.

Contextualizing the Mirzapur Case

In the case of Yogi M. P. Singh, the application was directed at the District Magistrate’s office. It sought information such as estimates, work booklets, and invoices held by the Executive Officer of the Municipality, Mirzapur City.

• The Law: Consequently, the District Magistrate’s PIO had to transfer the application to the Municipality’s PIO within five days. This requirement was mandated under Section 6(3). Furthermore, the PIO had to inform Mr. Singh.
• The Failure: The activist submitted that the transfer did not occur; consequently, this led to the dismissal of the matter. This constitutes a deemed refusal of information and a violation of the Act’s clear mandate. As a result, this is the root cause of the prolonged appeal process and the confrontational hearing.

---

2. Status of the RTI Application and Appeal

Direct, real-time status updates for the specific case numbers you provided (DOUDV/R/2019/60044 and A-20241100325) are not publicly available. You cannot perform a general search to find them. However, the provided content itself gives a critical status update and reveals a pattern of administrative challenges faced by the activist in Mirzapur:

A. Status of the Original RTI Application (Unconditional Apologies in Court)

• Registration Number: DOUDV/R/2019/60044 (Original)
• Status as of the Email (Feb 5, 2025): The authority transferred the request to another public body on 12/08/2024. The District Magistrate’s office then received it (DMOMR/R/2024/80016).
• Implication: The applicants filed the application in 2019. Despite this, they found themselves caught in the transfer and appeal process even in 2024 and 2025.

B. Status of the Second Appeal (Unconditional Apologies in Court)

• Appeal Registration Number: A-20241100325
• Commission: Uttar Pradesh Information Commission (UPIC), Hearing Court S-9 (Presided over by Smt. Shakuntala Gautam, State Information Commissioner).
• Status as of the Email (Feb 5, 2025): The UPIC was actively hearing the case. Moreover, the activist tendered an unconditional, written apology. This action was taken as directed by the Presiding Officer. Consequently, the apology aimed not only to settle the matter on the activist’s side but also sought to prompt the Commission to issue a favorable order.

C. Pattern of Systemic Issues

The search results reveal that Mr Yogi M. P. Singh actively engages in multiple similar second appeals (S09/A/1087/2025, A-20250401292, etc.) against various public authorities in Mirzapur, including the Police, Revenue, and DPRO. These cases consistently highlight recurring administrative failures: (Unconditional Apologies in Court)

• Deemed Refusal: PIOs ultimately fail to respond within the stipulated 30-day limit (Section 7(1)).
• Non-Compliance with Orders: PIOs allegedly disobeying the Information Commission’s direct orders.
• Procedural Evasion: Notably, public authorities attempting to suppress information or, moreover, confusing the applicant with irrelevant replies.

The case you provided is not an isolated incident; rather, it is part of a larger, ongoing effort to enforce accountability in Mirzapur. Moreover, this effort works against systemic administrative hurdles.

The contact information provided below is for the Uttar Pradesh Information Commission (UPIC); consequently, it serves as the authority handling the Second Appeal filed by the RTI activist.

🏛️ Uttar Pradesh Information Commission (UPIC) Contact Details: Unconditional Apologies in Court

This information is not only essential for communicating with the Commission regarding Second Appeals (under Section 19(3)), but it also plays a crucial role in addressing general inquiries.

---

Web Link (Official Website)

• Official Website: $\quad$ https://upsic.up.gov.in/

---

Head Office Details

Detail	Information
Address (Hindi)	7/7A, RTI भवन, विभूति खंड, गोमती नगर, लखनऊ, उत्तर प्रदेश
Address (English)	7/7A, RTI Bhawan, Vibhuti Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh
Office Phone	0522-2724930

---

General & Specific Email Addresses (Unconditional Apologies in Court)

Authority / Purpose	Email Address
General Website Queries	webmaster-upic[at]up[dot]gov[dot]in (Used for technical/general site issues)
Public Information Officer (PIO) Section	jansu-section[dot]upic[at]up[dot]gov[dot]in (Used for RTI-related queries within UPIC)

Note: The email addresses use [at] and [dot] to prevent spam; replace them with @ and . when using them (e.g., webmaster-upic@up.gov.in).

---

Specific Officials’ Information (for Context) (Unconditional Apologies in Court)

The activist’s case was heard by Court No. S-9.

• Presiding Officer: Smt. Shakuntala Gautam, State Information Commissioner (She took charge on March 13, 2024).

The email address you mentioned in your initial text is, in fact, for the hearing courts section of Smt. Additionally, the appellant subsequently sent the apology to the hearing courts section of Smt. using the email address: SHAKUNTALA GAUTAM hearingcourts9.upic@up.gov.in.

The District Magistrate (DM) Office actively handles certain affairs. through the Nagar Magistrate. The Nagar Palika Parishad (NPP) handles municipal affairs.

🏛️ Mirzapur Public Authorities Contact Information (Unconditional Apologies in Court)

1. District Magistrate (DM) Office, Mirzapur (Unconditional Apologies in Court)

(The office that received the misdirected RTI application)

Detail	Information
Designation	District Magistrate (DM) / District Collector
Address	Collectrate Compound, Mirzapur, UP 231001
DM’s Official Email	dmmir@nic.in
DM’s Mobile (CUG)	+91-9454417567
DM’s Office Phone	+91-05442-257400 (Office)
Alternative Office Phone	+91-05442-252480

---

2. Nagar Palika Parishad (NPP) / Executive Officer, Mirzapur City

(The authority that actually holds the information sought by the activist) (Unconditional Apologies in Court)

The Executive Officer (E.O.) of the Municipality is the primary PIO for municipal records. People often refer to the office as the Nagar Palika Parishad (NPP).

Detail	Information
Office Name	Nagar Palika Parishad (NPP), Mirzapur
Address	Ghantaghar, Welleslyganj, Mirzapur, Uttar Pradesh 231001
Office Phone	+91-05442-252382 (NPP Mirzapur Office)
Alternative Phone	+91-9453888399 (Listed Contact for NPP Office)
Complaint/General Email	mnpmirzapur@gmail.com (Used for property tax/general communication)
Official Website	https://nppmirzapur.com/ (For property tax, bill payments, and complaints)

---

These contacts should allow for direct communication with the offices responsible for processing the RTI application. They should also facilitate communication with the offices holding the requested development records.

Related Posts: Unconditional Apologies in Court

• Uttar Pradesh High Court Case Status Update
• Delayed Responses at District Magistrate: Explained
• Court Order Non-Compliance by Lekhpal Exposed
• High Court Order Ignored by UP Health Mission
• Systemic Corruption in Police: Demand for Justice