This RTI Appeal Against Information Denial case details a Second Appeal filed under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005, against the denial of information by the Chief Medical Officer (CMO), Mirzapur.

Specifically, the core issue revolves around the CMO’s invocation of Section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act to deny information related to the public health department’s functioning.

---

🚨 RTI Appeal Against Information Denial: Misuse of ‘Commercial Confidence’ in Public Health?

In general, the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005, is a cornerstone of Indian democracy, designed to promote transparency and accountability in public administration.^{1 However, a recent case from Mirzapur, Uttar Pradesh, highlights a concerning trend of Public Information Officers (PIOs) potentially misapplying exemption clauses to deny access to crucial information, particularly concerning public health services.2}

The Core Conflict: RTI Appeal Against Information Denial Under Section 8(1)(d)

In this case, the appellant, Yogi M P Singh, filed a Second Appeal before the Uttar Pradesh State Information Commission against the denial of their RTI request by the Chief Medical Officer (CMO), Mirzapur.³

In particular, the CMO’s communication, dated 01.02.2025, explicitly denied the information by citing two primary points:

1. First, asking the appellant to clarify the justification and public interest involved in seeking the information about departmental officials/employees.
2. Second, stating that the information is exempt from disclosure under Section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act, 2005.

What is Section 8(1)(d)?

In other words, this section exempts from disclosure:

“Information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information.”

🏥 Why Section 8(1)(d) is Inapplicable to Public Health Functioning

In response, the appellant effectively argues that the denial is an arbitrary use of the exemption. Indeed, the general functioning of a public health department—funded by the public exchequer—is inherently non-commercial and must be transparent.

1. The Nature of the Information Sought

Specifically, the appellant’s five points of information sought pertain directly to the delivery and management of public health services, particularly tuberculosis (TB) care in Mirzapur:

• Diagnostic Practices: For instance, the rationale for prescribing costly digital X-rays at private centers when the government’s TB Isolation Centre does not carry out sputum tests or lacks the facility to do so.
• Medicine Procurement: Similarly, the funds spent on purchasing medicines at the District TB Hospital and Divisional Hospital for the financial years 2022-23 and 2023-24.⁴
• Prescription Policy: Likewise, the official orders/memos allowing government doctors to prescribe medicines from private medical stores.
• Service Gaps: Finally, the reason for the non-availability of complete testing and medication facilities for tuberculosis patients.

2. Failure to Meet the Criteria for Exemption

Moreover, for the CMO’s denial to be valid under Section 8(1)(d), the Public Authority (CMO’s office) must meet a stringent three-part test, known as the Burden of Proof:

Requirement	CMO’s Justification (As presented)	Appellant’s Objection
Information must be ‘Commercial Confidence,’ ‘Trade Secret,’ or ‘Intellectual Property.’	Reportedly, alleged to fall under the clause.	Instead, the information concerns public authority working (funds, policy, services), not commercial activity.
Disclosure must ‘harm the competitive position of a third party.’	Notably, the CMO identifies no third party and explains no competitive harm.	Instead, the information relates to the CMO’s office, not a competitor, since public health services are not a competitive trade.
There is no overriding ‘larger public interest’ for disclosure.	Apparently, the CMO’s query implies a lack of public interest.	On the contrary, the issue of poor TB patient care, costly private referrals, and drug procurement policies is a matter of overwhelming public interest and transparency.

⚖️ The Public Interest Override

Even if the information somehow involved a third party (e.g., a supplier), the law would still mandate disclosure whenever a larger public interest applies.

Furthermore, the appellant argues that the denial is tantamount to promoting “anarchy, lawlessness, and chaos” by arbitrarily withholding public services. In particular, the questions raised—about expensive private referrals for poor TB patients and the non-availability of essential services for a contagious disease—clearly demonstrate a compelling public interest that overrides any alleged commercial confidence.

Conclusion and Next Steps

Therefore, the CMO’s action of citing Section 8(1)(d) without substantiating the involvement of a third party and explaining how the disclosure of public health expenditure and policy would cause competitive harm appears to be a clear misapplication of the RTI Act.

Accordingly, this RTI Appeal Against Information Denial appropriately brings the matter before the State Information Commission, urging them to intervene, enforce the spirit of the RTI Act, and ensure transparency in the crucial sector of public health for the citizens of Mirzapur.

That’s an excellent follow-up question. In particular, in the matter of the CMO Mirzapur’s denial, the Uttar Pradesh State Information Commission (UPSIC), sitting in the capacity of the Second Appellate Authority, holds substantial statutory powers to remedy the denial, ensure compliance, and impose accountability.

🏛️ Powers of the State Information Commission (SIC)

Broadly speaking, the SIC is a quasi-judicial body under the RTI Act and its decision is final and binding. Specifically, its powers, primarily derived from Section 19(8) and Section 20, are critical in handling this Second Appeal:

1. Direction to Provide Information (Section 19(8)(a))

Notably, this is the primary relief sought. Specifically, the SIC can order the CMO, Mirzapur, to:

• Provide Access to Information: First, direct the Public Information Officer (PIO) to furnish the complete and correct information sought by the appellant (Yogi M P Singh) regarding medicine expenditure, diagnostic policies, and government orders, within a specified timeframe.
• Specify the Format: Second, require the information to be provided in a particular form, such as certified copies of government orders or fund expenditure ledgers.

2. Imposition of Penalty (Section 20(1))

Consequently, if the Commission finds that the PIO (CMO, Mirzapur) denied the request without reasonable cause (i.e., by wrongly applying Section 8(1)(d) to routine public health records), it has the power to impose a penalty.

• Amount: For example, the Commission can levy a penalty of ₹250 per day from the date the information was due until the PIO furnishes it.
• Maximum Limit: In addition, the total penalty cannot exceed ₹25,000.
• Personal Liability: Importantly, the PIO’s own salary bears the penalty directly, and the Public Authority (the Medical and Health Department) does not pay it. As a result, the burden of proving the denial was justified lies entirely on the PIO.

3. Recommendation for Disciplinary Action (Section 20(2))

Additionally, if the Commission finds the PIO’s actions constitute a repeated pattern of unreasonable denial, providing false or misleading information, or willful obstruction, it can recommend disciplinary action against the PIO under their service rules.

• For example, in this specific case, the appellant accuses the CMO of misapplying the law and wrongly asking the applicant to prove “public interest,” a requirement general RTI applications do not impose. Consequently, if the denial turns out to be malafide (in bad faith), the Commission can invoke this provision.

4. Compensation to the Appellant (Section 19(8)(b))

Beyond this, the SIC has the authority to direct the Public Authority (the CMO’s office) to:

• Compensate the Appellant: Also, provide compensation to the appellant for any loss or detriment suffered due to the delay, denial, or incorrect information.

5. Corrective Measures (Section 19(8)(a)(iv))

Beyond the specific case, the SIC can issue a general order requiring the Public Authority to take steps to secure compliance with the RTI Act across the department, such as:

• Improving Record Management: For instance, directing the CMO’s office to maintain records (like medicine expenditure and official policies) in a manner that facilitates easy access, as required by Section 4(1)(a) of the Act.
• Training: Additionally, requiring officials to undergo training on the proper application of the RTI Act and its exemption clauses.

The SIC’s Task in the Mirzapur Case (RTI Appeal Against Information Denial)

Overall, the Commission must focus on the PIO’s justification:

Information Sought	PIO’s Justification (Section 8(1)(d))	SIC’s Likely Assessment
Fund spent on medicines (2022-24)	Commercial Confidence	Invalid. Notably, this is public expenditure, essential for transparency and accountability.
Reason for prescribing private X-rays	Commercial Confidence	Invalid. Instead, this relates to policy and service delivery, directly affecting patient welfare.
Govt. order allowing private medicine prescription	Commercial Confidence	Invalid. After all, public policies/orders are not trade secrets, and their disclosure is vital for public interest.

Consequently, the SIC is likely to rule that the CMO failed to discharge the onus of proof that the disclosure would harm the competitive position of a third party, thereby nullifying the Section 8(1)(d) exemption.

In short, this is a request for the web link and specific case details for this RTI Appeal Against Information Denial, filed by Mahesh Pratap Singh (Yogi M P Singh) against the CMO, Mirzapur, before the Uttar Pradesh State Information Commission (UPSIC).

Overall, based on the information available and current public domain search results, here are the most relevant details and the web link to the portal that manages such case information.

🔗 Web Link and Case Details (RTI Appeal Against Information Denial)

1. Web Link (Portal) (RTI Appeal Against Information Denial)

Specifically, the official state portal manages the entire RTI process in Uttar Pradesh, including the filing of RTI applications, First Appeals, and Second Appeals (like this one).

• Official Web Link for UP Information Commission (UPSIC):
  • Specifically, the portal for accessing case information, filing appeals, and checking the cause list for the Uttar Pradesh Information Commission is: upsic.up.gov.in
• Specific Link for Online Case Information/Cause List:
  • Also, to check the current status of a case or the weekly hearing list, users typically go to the “Citizen Service Portal” or “Cause List” section, which they can often find at a link like: upsic.up.gov.in/cispu
  • Specifically, the court of S-9, Smt. Shakuntala Gautam, State Information Commissioner, would likely list the appeal. Therefore, you would need to check the “Weekly Cause List” or the “View Order” sections using the hearing date or registration number.

2. Core Case Details (RTI Appeal Against Information Denial)

Overall, the provided text contains all the unique identifiers for this specific appeal:

Detail	Description
Type of Case	Second Appeal under Section 19(3) of the RTI Act, 2005
Appeal Registration Number	A-20241102232
Original RTI Registration No.	DIRMH/A/2024/60892 (This is the ID of the First Appeal, which is the subsequent stage of the original RTI application)
Appellant’s Name	Yogi M P Singh (Mahesh Pratap Singh)
Public Authority/Respondent	Chief Medical Officer (CMO), Mirzapur
Hearing Court	Court Number 9 (Presided over by Hon’ble Shakuntala Gautam)
Denial Section Cited	Section 8(1)(d) (Commercial Confidence, Trade Secrets)
Hearing Date Mentioned	5th February 2025

3. Information Denied (Summary) (RTI Appeal Against Information Denial)

In summary, the five points of information denied pertain to the functioning of the District T.B. Hospital and Divisional Hospital, Mirzapur, focusing on accountability and public interest:

1. First, the justification for prescribing expensive Digital X-ray tests at private centers instead of available sputum tests at the government facility.
2. Second, the funds spent on purchasing medicines in the relevant hospitals for the current financial year 2022-23.
3. Third, the funds spent on purchasing medicines in the relevant hospitals for the current financial year 2023-24.¹
4. Fourth, the government order/circular allowing doctors to prescribe medicines from private medical stores.²
5. Finally, the reason for non-availability of entire test and medication facilities for contagious diseases like Tuberculosis (TB).³

Ultimately, you can use the Appeal Registration Number (A-20241102232) on the UPSIC portal to check the status, hearing date (if rescheduled), and the final order passed by the Commission.