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

The pursuit of transparency often comes at a price. Recent events highlight the bureaucratic hurdles in India’s Right to Information (RTI) framework. 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. 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. It became tangled in a web of jurisdictional confusion. This led to unnecessary delay and a heated court hearing.

1. The RTI Request and the Initial Misstep

The activist’s original application was filed on November 25, 2019. It sought detailed information from the Executive Officer of the Municipality, Mirzapur City. 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. They registered it under registration number DMOMR/R/2024/80016. This occurred after 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. This issue is the crux of the procedural failure. (Unconditional Apologies in Court)

• The Obligation: Section 6(3) of the RTI Act 2005 mandates something specific. The PIO in the District Magistrate’s office had a mandatory duty. This duty was required to be fulfilled as per the Act. The duty was to transfer the application to the Executive Officer, Municipality of Mirzapur City. This was 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 listened to the activist’s arguments. The officer deemed these arguments to be in an “up tone”. These arguments were likely fueled by the frustration of 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 submitted a formal, written apology to the presiding officer, Ms. Shakuntala Gautam, assuring his respect for the court and 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 not implemented properly in Uttar Pradesh. The condition of transparency is described as “deeply flawed” and “discouraging.”
• Suppression of Truth: The activist highlights the irony in a democracy. “Those who speak the truth are often punished,” they say. This reflects a bitter truth. “Truth is suppressed” and “accountability is evaded.”

The activist was a citizen exercising his fundamental right to freedom of expression. He found himself apologizing. It was not for misfiling the RTI, but for his frustration over an administrative failure. 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 reveals a challenging environment for transparency advocates. This is even more apparent when the administrative fault lies with the Public Information Officer. They did not perform their statutory duty under Section 6(3). This situation is a stark reminder of the continuous struggle. We must work to ensure the RTI Act functions as intended. It serves as a potent tool for holding the powerful accountable.

That’s an excellent idea. Based on your request, I have gathered the full text of the key legal provision. 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. This section clearly outlines the mandatory duty of a Public Information Officer (PIO) when an application is misdirected. (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: The District Magistrate’s PIO had to transfer the application to the Municipality’s PIO within five days. The authorities required this under Section 6(3). Additionally, the PIO had to inform Mr. Singh.
• The Failure: The activist submitted that the transfer did not occur, leading to the dismissal of the matter. This constitutes a deemed refusal of information and a violation of the Act’s clear mandate. 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. The activist tendered an unconditional, written apology. This was as directed by the Presiding Officer. The apology aimed to settle the matter on the activist’s side. It also sought to move 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 fail to respond within the 30-day limit (Section 7(1)).
• Non-Compliance with Orders: PIOs allegedly disobeying the Information Commission’s direct orders.
• Procedural Evasion: Public authorities attempting to suppress information or confusing the applicant with irrelevant replies.

The case you provided is not an isolated incident. It is part of a larger, ongoing effort to enforce accountability in Mirzapur. This effort works against systemic administrative hurdles.

The contact information provided below is for the Uttar Pradesh Information Commission (UPIC). It is 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 essential for communicating with the Commission regarding Second Appeals (under Section 19(3)) and 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 for the hearing courts section of Smt. The appellant 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.