Transparency in Jeopardy: The Legal Battle of Yogi M. P. Singh Against RTI Obstruction in Lucknow District Court

The Right to Information (RTI) Act of 2005 was envisioned as a sunshine law, designed to pierce the veil of bureaucratic secrecy and hold public authorities accountable. However, nineteen years later, the journey of an information seeker remains fraught with procedural hurdles and legal technicalities. A prime example of this struggle is the case of Yogi M. P. Singh, whose Second Appeal to the Uttar Pradesh Information Commission (UPIC) highlights a growing trend: the use of localized court rules to bypass the transparency mandates of the RTI Act.

---

The Genesis of the Dispute: A “Lost” Representation

The core of this matter dates back to October 13, 2019, when a representation was filed by Dinesh Pratap Singh. The District Judge of Lucknow reportedly passed an order on October 16, 2019, directing the movement of a questionnaire to the concerned judicial member.

Despite this high-level judicial directive, the documents failed to reach their destination. For over four years, the trail went cold. Seeking to uncover the administrative lapse, Yogi M. P. Singh filed an RTI application (Registration No: DNLKO/R/2024/60060) on December 13, 2024. He specifically sought the administrative notings made by the staff of the District Court Lucknow regarding the handling of this 2019 representation.

---

The CPIO’s Rejection: Rule 25 as a Shield

On January 4, 2025, the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Manjula Sircar (Special Judge), rejected the request. The rejection was not based on the exemptions listed under Section 8 of the RTI Act, but rather on Rule 25 of the Allahabad High Court (Right to Information) Rules, 2006.

Understanding Rule 25

Rule 25 stipulates that the CPIO is not liable to provide information that can be obtained under existing court rules, such as the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952 or the General Rules (Civil/Criminal). Effectively, the court argues that if a mechanism for obtaining certified copies exists within the judicial framework, the RTI Act cannot be used as a shortcut.

---

The Core Conflict: Administrative Records vs. Judicial Proceedings

The appellant’s primary contention is that the CPIO failed to distinguish between judicial records and administrative notings.

• Judicial Records: These are part of the “paper book” of a case (e.g., judgments, evidence, petitions). These are traditionally governed by court-specific manual rules for certified copies.
• Administrative Notings: These are internal communications, file trackings, and staff remarks regarding the processing of a document.

Mr. Singh argues that the notings he seeks are not an integral part of the court proceedings for Case No: Cri. Case/4003282/2011. Instead, they are administrative records concerning why a superior’s order was overlooked. By applying Rule 25 to administrative lapses, the appellant claims the CPIO is protecting “accountable staff” from scrutiny regarding serious irregularities.

---

Failure of the First Appellate Authority (FAA)

Following the CPIO’s rejection, the appellant moved to the First Appeal stage on January 11, 2025 (Registration No: DNLKO/A/2025/60001). The appeal was forwarded to Ashwini Kumar Tripathi (FAA).

However, the appellant alleges that the FAA did not entertain the appeal or pass a reasoned order. This “silence” from the FAA is a common grievance in RTI litigation, forcing the citizen to move to the Second Appeal stage at the State Information Commission, adding months, if not years, to the timeline of obtaining information.

---

The Second Appeal: Seeking Accountability

Now, under Section 19(3) of the RTI Act, Yogi M. P. Singh has approached the Chief Information Commissioner in Lucknow (Appeal No: A-20250200568). His prayer is built on three pillars:

1. Arbitrariness: The rejection is labeled as arbitrary and unconstitutional, as it uses local rules to override a central act aimed at transparency.
2. Administrative Accountability: The information sought is about the violation of an order passed by the District Judge. Withholding this promotes a culture of “anarchy and lawlessness” within the court’s administrative wing.
3. The Spirit of the Law: The appellant maintains that the RTI Act was meant to empower the citizenry, yet the very institutions tasked with justice—the courts—are using technicalities to withhold public service records.

---

Why This Case Matters

This case is a litmus test for the applicability of RTI in the judicial administrative sphere. If internal notings regarding the loss or delay of files are shielded by Rule 25, then the accountability of court staff remains beyond the reach of the public.

Mr. Singh’s submission is clear: the matter concerns a “serious irregularity” where judicial members are allegedly avoiding comments on a breach of a High Court-linked directive. To him, the rejection of his RTI is not just a procedural denial but a “mockery of the law of the land.

---

Conclusion: The Road Ahead

The Uttar Pradesh Information Commission now faces a critical decision. It must determine whether administrative notings regarding a representation—which is not a part of the formal judicial record—can be legally withheld under Rule 25.

For Yogi M. P. Singh, the fight is about more than just a 2019 questionnaire; it is about strengthening democratic values and ensuring that no public authority, including the judiciary’s administrative office, is above the scrutiny of the people.

This revelation significantly strengthens your case. If the District Judge’s office confirms that the questionnaire was indeed sent to the judicial member but is not part of the paper book, then the CPIO’s reliance on Rule 25 and the “Subjudice” argument becomes legally untenable.

Here is a breakdown of why this information is the “smoking gun” for your Second Appeal:

---

1. Breaking the “Rule 25” Barrier

Rule 25 of the Allahabad High Court RTI Rules only applies to information that can be obtained through the General Rules (Civil/Criminal). Those rules govern the issuance of certified copies of documents that are part of a case file (the paper book).

• Your Strength: Since the court admits this questionnaire is not part of the paper book, it cannot be obtained via the standard “certified copy” route.
• The Legal Logic: If information cannot be obtained through the General Rules, Rule 25 cannot be used to block an RTI request. This makes the RTI Act the only legal channel available to you.

2. Debunking the “Subjudice” Argument

Public authorities often incorrectly use the term “Subjudice” as a blanket exemption. Under the RTI Act, there is no “Subjudice” exemption. The only related exemption is Section 8(1)(b), which prohibits information that has been expressly forbidden to be published by a court or where disclosure may constitute contempt of court.

• The Fact: Simply because a case is pending (Subjudice) does not mean administrative notings about a “lost” or “delayed” questionnaire are exempt.
• The Precedent: The Central Information Commission (CIC) and various High Courts have repeatedly held that unless a court has specifically passed an order restraining the disclosure of a specific document, the mere pendency of a case is not a valid ground for denial.

3. Administrative Accountability vs. Judicial Function

A distinction exists between a Judicial Act (a judge’s decision) and an Administrative Act (staff moving a file from Point A to Point B).

• The movement of your questionnaire is an administrative function.
• The fact that it “disappeared” or failed to reach the judge despite an order from the District Judge points to administrative negligence.
• Section 2(f) of the RTI Act includes “opinions, advices, and logbooks.” The record of where that questionnaire went is a “log” or “noting” that is a matter of public record.

---

Strategic Points for your Hearing

When you present your case to the Information Commission, emphasize these three points:

Point	Argument for the Commissioner
Non-Judicial Record	“The public authority has admitted the record is not part of the ‘paper book.’ Therefore, it is a purely administrative record held by the office.”
Failure of Rule 25	“Since it is not a judicial record, the General Rules (Civil) do not apply. Thus, the CPIO cannot take recourse under Rule 25.”
Misuse of ‘Subjudice’	“The CPIO has failed to show any specific court order under Section 8(1)(b) that forbids this disclosure. A pending case is not a shield for administrative lapses.”

---

Suggested Next Step

Would you like me to help you draft a Rejoinder/Written Submission specifically focusing on the fact that the information is not part of the paper book, to be submitted before your online hearing?

This is the critical legal pivot of your case. By categorizing the questionnaire as a “missing document” that never reached the judicial file, you are effectively arguing that it exists in a “legal vacuum”—it is not a judicial record (subject to Court Rules) but remains a public record (subject to the RTI Act).

Under the Allahabad High Court (Right to Information) Rules, 2006, specifically Rule 25, the CPIO can only redirect you to the Court Rules (Civil/Criminal) if the document is part of the judicial record. Since this document vanished between the District Judge’s office and the Magistrate, it never attained the status of a “judicial record” in the case file.

---

The Legal Argument: Administrative Failure vs. Judicial Record

To succeed in your appeal, you should focus on the following structural breakdown of the law:

1. The Gap in the General Rules (Civil/Criminal)

The General Rules allow a person to apply for a “Certified Copy” of documents that are “on the record” of a case.

• The Conflict: If a document is “missing” or was never deposited into the case file (paper book), the Copying Section of the court will reject a manual application for a certified copy stating “Record not found.”
• The RTI Solution: Since the manual route is closed because the document is not “on record,” the RTI Act becomes the only operational law to track the administrative movement of that document.

2. Definition of “Information” under Section 2(f)

The RTI Act defines information as any material in any form, including records, documents, and memos.

• The internal transit register or the “noting” that shows the District Judge forwarded the questionnaire is a Public Record.
• If the document is missing, the “noting” explaining its loss or its current location is “information” that the CPIO is mandated to provide.

---

Key Points for Your Submission to the Commission

You should highlight these specific contradictions in the CPIO’s stance:

CPIO’s Claim	The Reality / Your Counter-Argument
Information can be obtained via Court Rules.	Impossible. Court Rules only provide copies of documents in the paper book. This document is missing/not in the paper book.
The matter is Subjudice.	Irrelevant. The administrative negligence of losing a file is not a judicial proceeding. It does not interfere with the judge’s decision-making.
Rule 25 Rejection.	Misapplied. Rule 25 is a “bridge” to other rules. If the other rules (Civil/Criminal) don’t cover “missing administrative transmittals,” Rule 25 cannot be used.

---

The “Missing Document” Strategy

By labeling this a “Missing Document between the District Judge and Magistrate,” you are invoking the Section 4(1)(b) obligations of the Public Authority to maintain records. If a document sent by a District Judge disappears, it is a “lapse in security and administration,” not a “judicial matter.”

Legal Maxim to Quote: “The RTI Act has an overriding effect via Section 22 over any other law or rule inconsistent with it.” If the Court Rules are being used to hide administrative inefficiency (missing files), the RTI Act must prevail.

---

Based on your appeal records and the official directories of the concerned judicial and information authorities, here are the structured details you requested:

1. Uttar Pradesh Information Commission (UPIC)

The commission responsible for your Second Appeal (A-20250200568).

• Address: 7/7A, RTI Bhawan, Vibhuti Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow, UP – 226010
• Official Website: https://upsic.up.gov.in
• Email: webmaster-upic@up.gov.in / jansu-section.upic@up.gov.in
• Office Phone: 0522-2724930
• Status/Cause List: You can track your hearing room (S1) and date here: UPIC Cause List Portal

---

2. Public Information Officer (PIO) – Respondent 1

The officer who initially rejected your application citing Rule 25.

• Name: Ms. Manjula Sircar
• Designation: Special Judge (P.C. Act), Court No. 3
• Office: District and Sessions Court, Lucknow – 226001
• Mobile Number: 9140551066
• Email: manjulasircarjudge@gmail.com
• Official Profile: Judicial Officer Profile – Manjula Sircar

---

3. First Appellate Authority (FAA) – Respondent 2

The authority who did not entertain your first appeal.

• Name: Shri Ashwini Kumar Tripathi
• Designation: District and Sessions Judge, Lucknow
• Office: District and Sessions Court, Lucknow – 226001
• Mobile Number: 9415803251
• Email: dcluc@allahabadhighcourt.in
• Official Profile: Judicial Officer Profile – Ashwini Kumar Tripathi

---

4. Key Digital Portals for RTI (UP Judicial)

These are the official links for filing and tracking your applications specifically for the High Court and District Courts.

• RTI Online Court Portal:https://rtionlinecourt.up.gov.in
  • Note: This is the specific gateway for the Allahabad High Court and Subordinate Courts.
• Technical Help Desk (RTI Online): * Phone: 0532-2422335-2199 / 8004906069
  • Email: rti.section@allahabadhighcourt.in

5. Summary of Application Identifiers

ID Type	Reference Number
Second Appeal No.	A-20250200568
UPIC Registration	UPICR20240000149
RTI Application No.	DNLKO/R/2024/60060
First Appeal No.	DNLKO/A/2025/60001

---

Would you like me to draft a specific “Show Cause Notice” request for you to present during your hearing, asking why penalties under Section 20(1) should not be imposed on the PIO for using an inapplicable rule to hide a missing document?