Justice in India often moves slowly, especially when ancestral property rights collide with administrative silence. Sadhana Tiwari, an appellant from Mirzapur, knows this struggle firsthand. Her ongoing fight before the Uttar Pradesh State Information Commission shows exactly how citizens can use their Legal Rights Under RTI to challenge official evasion and demand real accountability. Denied basic information by both the Circle Officer of Lalganj and the Station House Officer of Drummond Ganj, Tiwari refused to accept silence as an answer. Instead, she filed a formal objection, insisting that public authorities explain the reasoning behind decisions that directly affect her inheritance. Her case is more than a personal grievance — it is a clear reminder that understanding and asserting your Legal Rights Under RTI can transform a private complaint into a powerful tool for transparency and justice.

Legal Rights Under RTI: Sadhana Tiwari’s Fight for Transparency and Inheritance in Mirzapur

Justice in India often moves slowly, especially when ancestral property and administrative transparency collide. Indeed, Sadhana Tiwari, an appellant from Mirzapur, knows this firsthand. Overall, her case shows how citizens can use their Legal Rights Under RTI to challenge silence and demand accountability from public officials.

Specifically, on February 7, 2025, Tiwari filed an objection with the Uttar Pradesh State Information Commission. In it, she challenges the Circle Officer (C.O.) of Lalganj and the Station House Officer (S.O.) of Drummond Ganj for denying her information. At its core, however, this dispute is not just about paperwork. Instead, it is a stand against what the courts call the “inscrutable face of the sphinx” — a silent, unresponsive administration.

---

The Core of the Dispute: A Legacy Usurped

To begin with, Tiwari’s grievance rests on a basic claim of inheritance. Namely, she is the daughter of the late Siyakant Mishra, who was the son of Shambhu Sharan Mishra. Because she descends from a predeceased son, Tiwari qualifies as a Class I legal heir under Indian succession law.

However, she alleges that her uncles, Dayashankar Mishra and Hari Prasad Mishra, inherited her grandfather’s property exclusively. Meanwhile, this happened during her childhood, while she was living with maternal relatives because of perceived threats to her safety.

As a result, Tiwari filed an RTI request to uncover one simple truth: by what legal authority or court order was her share of the inheritance transferred to her uncles?

Why Officials Denied Her Legal Rights Under RTI

In response, the Drummond Ganj Police, whose reply forms the basis of the C.O. Lalganj’s denial, rely on a questionable reading of the law. Specifically, they cite Section 4(2)(b)(4) and claim that officials cannot disclose the “reasons” or “justifications” behind administrative actions.

1. The Legal Fallacy

First, the appellant identifies a clear technical error here. In fact, Section 4(2) of the RTI Act 2005 exists to promote transparency, since it requires public authorities to proactively share as much information as possible. Therefore, the clause the police cited appears to misapply the Uttar Pradesh RTI Rules 2015, rather than the RTI Act itself.

2. The Obligation to Provide Reasons

Additionally, under Section 4(1)(d) of the RTI Act, every public authority must explain its administrative or quasi-judicial decisions to the people they affect. Yet the police have not explained why they classified this matter as “civil,” even though the allegations point to criminal forgery and cheating. As a result, their refusal arguably violates the spirit of the Act.

---

Civil Dispute vs. Criminal Offence

Generally, Indian property disputes follow a familiar pattern: police label the matter “purely civil” and, consequently, step back from investigating it. Yet Tiwari challenges this binary distinction directly.

Specifically, she argues that if officials concealed her name during the inheritance process — a process she was too young to contest — then the case involves Mischief (Section 425 IPC) and, moreover, Forgery of Public Registers (Section 466 IPC).

• The appellant’s question: If police insist the matter is civil, then what legal basis supports that conclusion when criminal statutes appear to have been violated?
• The “speaking order” requirement: Similarly, citing the Supreme Court’s ruling in State of Punjab vs. Bhag Singh, Tiwari points out that failing to give reasons amounts to a denial of justice. Consequently, every order must be a “speaking order” — one that reveals the reasoning behind the decision.

---

The Path Forward: Asserting Legal Rights Under RTI at the State Information Commission

Currently, Tiwari’s hearing is set for March 20, 2025, in Court Number 9, before Information Commissioner Shakuntala Gautam. Overall, her demands are clear:

1. Transparency: First, officials must produce the court orders or procedures that allowed the inheritance to proceed without her.
2. Accountability: Second, police must explain why they are acting as “counsellors” rather than investigators in a matter involving alleged forgery.
3. Adherence to law: Finally, the Commission should overrule the “flimsy grounds” the C.O. Lalganj used to deny her request.

---

Why This Case Matters

Overall, Sadhana Tiwari’s struggle mirrors that of thousands of women across India who get written out of family land records. Indeed, when police and administrative offices hide behind procedural technicalities, they do more than protect a file — they may also, in effect, be protecting a crime.

Ultimately, the RTI Act exists to connect the “mind of the decision-maker” to the matter in question. Therefore, if the State Information Commission rules in her favor, it will send a clear message to the Mirzapur police: transparency is never optional, and the “why” matters just as much as the “what.

Does Staying Silent Ever Help? Understanding Your Legal Rights Under RTI

In short, no — silence rarely resolves corruption. Instead, it protects the status quo. In fact, within administrative law and the RTI framework, silence is often the primary tool corrupt systems use to avoid accountability.

Below, then, is why breaking that silence matters, and how the law treats administrative silence in cases like this one.

1. Silence as a Shield for Maladministration

In Tiwari’s case, for instance, police and revenue authorities relied on vague denials and, moreover, left out key facts about her inheritance. So when officials stay silent about their reasons — such as why they transferred her property to her uncles — that silence serves two purposes:

• First, it prevents accountability, since a higher court has nothing in writing to review.
• Second, it discourages the aggrieved party, because officials hope that delay and silence will make the petitioner give up.

2. The Legal Doctrine of “Speaking Orders”

Notably, Indian courts have repeatedly struck down administrative silence. Similarly, as Tiwari cites in her appeal, referencing State of Punjab vs. Bhag Singh, the “inscrutable face of the sphinx” — a silent official — is unacceptable under the law.

• Transparency is mandatory. Specifically, Section 4(1)(d) of the RTI Act legally obligates the government to explain its decisions.
• Objectivity beats subjectivity. Indeed, when officials must record their reasons, they act more objectively and follow the law more closely. Silence, on the other hand, opens the door to biased decisions.

3. The Risk of “Deemed Acceptance”

Furthermore, in many bureaucratic processes, staying silent — or failing to object to a report like the one from SHO Drummond Ganj — can lead the law to treat that silence as acceptance.

Therefore, by filing her objection on February 7, Tiwari legally broke that silence. As a result, authorities can no longer claim she agreed with their “civil nature” assessment of the case.

Why Breaking Silence Matters for Your Legal Rights Under RTI

In summary, the table below compares the two paths:

If you stay silent…	If you speak up through RTI and appeals…
The “civil nature” label goes unchallenged.	You force police to justify why they ignored forgery under IPC 466.
The disputed inheritance stays on record unchanged.	You build a paper trail that, in turn, supports a Writ Petition in High Court.
Corrupt officials face no consequences.	The Information Commission can, however, fine the PIO ₹250 per day.

---

The Psychological vs. Legal Reality

Admittedly, speaking out against local authorities in Mirzapur can feel exhausting, even risky. Still, the legal reality remains simple: rights not claimed become rights lost. After all, corruption thrives in silence, while transparency remains the strongest disinfectant against it.

Therefore, by challenging the C.O. Lalganj’s report, Tiwari chose the correct legal path. In doing so, she transformed a private complaint into a public record of administrative failure — and, ultimately, asserted her Legal Rights Under RTI in the process.

Below, then, are the official contact details for the key authorities involved, based on the latest available government directories, to help with her upcoming hearing and ongoing correspondence.

---

1. Uttar Pradesh State Information Commission (UPSIC)

Here, specifically, is where Tiwari’s Second Appeal (File Number: S09/A/2193/2024) is being heard. (Legal Rights Under RTI)

• Website: upsic.up.gov.in
• Address: RTI Bhawan, 7/7A, Vibhuti Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow, UP – 226010
• Hearing room: Court Number 9 (Shakuntala Gautam, Information Commissioner)
• Email (general): webmaster-upic@up.gov.in
• Email (Jansunwai/RTI Section): jansu-section.upic@up.gov.in
• Office phone: 0522-2724930

2. Mirzapur District Police Authorities (Legal Rights Under RTI)

Below are the officers responsible for the reports Tiwari is contesting.

Office / Designation	Name of Officer (Current)	Mobile (CUG)	Official Email
DIG / SP Mirzapur	Somen Barma (IPS)	9454400299	spmzr-up@nic.in
Addl. SP (Operation)	Manish Kumar Mishra	9454401105	asp-op.mi@up.gov.in
Addl. SP (City)	Nitesh Singh	9454401104	asp-city.mi@up.gov.in
Circle Officer (C.O.) Lalganj	Amar Bahadur (DSP)	9454401592	co-lalganj.mi@up.gov.in
SHO Drummond Ganj	Station In-charge	9454404014*	(via C.O. Lalganj)

Note: The SHO Drummond Ganj usually operates under the station’s mobile CUG. Even so, the number above follows the standard pattern for station in-charges in that series, so formal correspondence should still go to the C.O. Lalganj as the immediate supervisory authority.

3. Important Web Links for Tracking (Legal Rights Under RTI)

• RTI Online (UP): rtionline.up.gov.in — for filing and tracking requests
• Jansunwai (IGRS) Portal: jansunwai.up.nic.in — to track the status of complaints against police reports
• Case Status (UPSIC): upsic.up.gov.in/cispu/search_appeal — enter appeal number A-20241200797

---

Recommended Next Step (Legal Rights Under RTI)

Since Tiwari’s hearing is scheduled for March 20, 2025, she would, therefore, be wise to send a copy of her February 7 objection to the SP Mirzapur and ASP Operation using the official emails listed above. This way, the authorities cannot claim ignorance of her legal arguments about IPC 466 and the relevant RTI Act sections — and, ultimately, she strengthens her position as she asserts her Legal Rights Under RTI going forward.irzapur and ASP Operation using the official emails listed above. Doing so ensures the authorities cannot claim ignorance of her legal arguments about IPC 466 and the relevant RTI Act sections — and strengthens her position as she asserts her Legal Rights Under RTI going forward.hese emails to the SP and ASP?

Related: Allegations of Land Usurpation in Mirzapur Case