District Court RTI: How to File and Appeal — The Legal Battle of Yogi M. P. Singh Against Obstruction in Lucknow

Filing a District Court RTI application should be straightforward under the Right to Information (RTI) Act of 2005, which aimed to pierce the veil of bureaucratic secrecy and hold public authorities accountable. However, nineteen years later, information seekers still face procedural hurdles and legal technicalities at every turn — and nowhere is this clearer than in District Court RTI matters. In particular, Yogi M. P. Singh’s Second Appeal to the Uttar Pradesh Information Commission (UPIC) illustrates this problem clearly, since it shows a growing trend of using localized court rules to bypass the transparency mandates of the RTI Act.

The Genesis of the District Court RTI Dispute: A “Lost” Representation

The core of this District Court RTI matter dates back to October 13, 2019, when Dinesh Pratap Singh filed a representation. Then, three days later, on October 16, 2019, the District Judge of Lucknow reportedly passed an order directing staff to move a questionnaire to the concerned judicial member.

Despite this high-level judicial directive, the documents never reached their destination. Indeed, for over four years, the trail went cold. Consequently, in an effort to uncover the administrative lapse, Yogi M. P. Singh filed a District Court RTI application (Registration No: DNLKO/R/2024/60060) on December 13, 2024. Specifically, he sought the administrative notings that the District Court Lucknow staff made regarding the handling of this 2019 representation.

---

How the CPIO Rejected This District Court RTI Request: Rule 25 as a Shield

On January 4, 2025, the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Manjula Sircar (Special Judge), rejected the District Court RTI request. Notably, she did not base the rejection on the exemptions listed under Section 8 of the RTI Act. Instead, she cited Rule 25 of the Allahabad High Court (Right to Information) Rules, 2006.

Understanding Rule 25 in District Court RTI Cases

Essentially, Rule 25 states that the CPIO need not provide information that a person can obtain under existing court rules, such as the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952, or the General Rules (Civil/Criminal). In other words, if a mechanism for obtaining certified copies already exists within the judicial framework, then the RTI Act cannot serve as a shortcut around it — a defense public authorities raise often in District Court RTI disputes.

---

The Core Conflict: Administrative Records vs. Judicial Proceedings

Fundamentally, the appellant’s primary contention centers on a key distinction that many District Court RTI applicants encounter: the CPIO failed to separate judicial records from administrative notings.

• Judicial Records: These form part of the “paper book” of a case (for example, judgments, evidence, petitions). Traditionally, court-specific manual rules govern certified copies of these documents.
• Administrative Notings: In contrast, these consist of internal communications, file trackings, and staff remarks regarding the processing of a document.

Specifically, 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 represent administrative records concerning why staff overlooked a superior’s order. Therefore, by applying Rule 25 to an administrative lapse, the appellant claims the CPIO is shielding accountable staff from scrutiny over serious irregularities.

---

Failure of the First Appellate Authority (FAA)

After the CPIO rejected the request, the appellant then moved to the First Appeal stage on January 11, 2025 (Registration No: DNLKO/A/2025/60001). Subsequently, staff forwarded the appeal to Ashwini Kumar Tripathi (FAA).

However, the appellant alleges that the FAA neither entertained the appeal nor passed a reasoned order. Furthermore, this silence from the FAA is a common grievance in District Court RTI litigation; as a result, it forces citizens to move to the Second Appeal stage at the State Information Commission, which in turn adds months, if not years, to the timeline for obtaining information.

---

The Second Appeal: Seeking Accountability in This District Court RTI Case

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). Overall, his prayer rests on three pillars:

1. Arbitrariness: First, the rejection is arbitrary and unconstitutional, since it uses local rules to override a central act aimed at transparency.
2. Administrative Accountability: Second, the information sought concerns the violation of an order the District Judge passed. Consequently, withholding this information promotes a culture of “anarchy and lawlessness” within the court’s administrative wing.
3. The Spirit of the Law: Finally, the RTI Act was meant to empower citizens; yet the very institutions tasked with delivering justice — the courts — are using technicalities to withhold public service records.

---

Why This District Court RTI Case Matters

Overall, this District Court RTI case serves as a litmus test for how the RTI Act applies within the judicial administrative sphere. Specifically, if Rule 25 shields internal notings about lost or delayed files, then court staff accountability remains beyond public reach.

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

---

Conclusion: The Road Ahead for This District Court RTI Appeal

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

For Yogi M. P. Singh, however, the fight extends well beyond a 2019 questionnaire; ultimately, it concerns strengthening democratic values and ensuring that no public authority, including the judiciary’s administrative office, stands above public scrutiny.

Moreover, this revelation significantly strengthens the District Court RTI case. Specifically, if the District Judge’s office confirms that the questionnaire was indeed sent to the judicial member but never became part of the paper book, then the CPIO’s reliance on Rule 25 and the “Subjudice” argument becomes legally untenable.

Below, then, is a breakdown of why this information serves as the “smoking gun” for the Second Appeal:

---

How to File and Appeal a District Court RTI: Key Legal Arguments

1. Breaking the “Rule 25” Barrier

To begin with, Rule 25 of the Allahabad High Court RTI Rules only applies to information that a person can obtain through the General Rules (Civil/Criminal). Specifically, those rules govern the issuance of certified copies for documents that are part of a case file (the paper book).

• The Strength: Since the court admits this questionnaire is not part of the paper book, no one can obtain it via the standard “certified copy” route.
• The Legal Logic: Therefore, if a person cannot obtain information through the General Rules, then Rule 25 cannot block a District Court RTI request. As a result, this makes the RTI Act the only legal channel available.

2. Debunking the “Subjudice” Argument

Frequently, public authorities incorrectly use the term “Subjudice” as a blanket exemption in District Court RTI matters. However, the RTI Act contains no “Subjudice” exemption at all. Instead, the only related exemption, Section 8(1)(b), prohibits information that a court has expressly forbidden to publish or where disclosure may constitute contempt of court.

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

3. Administrative Accountability vs. Judicial Function

To clarify, 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).

• First, moving the questionnaire constitutes an administrative function.
• Then, because it “disappeared” or failed to reach the judge despite the District Judge’s order, this points to administrative negligence.
• Additionally, Section 2(f) of the RTI Act includes “opinions, advices, and logbooks.” Therefore, the record of where the questionnaire went qualifies as a “log” or “noting” — and thus it is a matter of public record.

---

Strategic Points for the District Court RTI Hearing

When presenting the case to the Information Commission, therefore, 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. Consequently, a pending case is not a shield for administrative lapses.

---

The “Missing Document” Strategy for District Court RTI Applicants

By labeling this a “Missing Document between the District Judge and Magistrate,” the argument thereby invokes the Section 4(1)(b) obligations of the Public Authority to maintain records. After all, if a document sent by a District Judge disappears, that constitutes 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.” Therefore, if the Court Rules are being used to hide administrative inefficiency (missing files), the RTI Act must prevail.

---

The Legal Argument: Administrative Failure vs. Judicial Record

To succeed in a District Court RTI appeal like this one, then, the following structural breakdown of the law matters most:

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

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

• The Conflict: However, if a document is missing, or if no one ever deposited it into the case file (paper book), then 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 therefore closed — because the document is not “on record” — the RTI Act becomes the only operational law for tracking the administrative movement of that document.

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

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

• Accordingly, the internal transit register, or the “noting” showing that the District Judge forwarded the questionnaire, constitutes a Public Record.
• Furthermore, if the document is missing, the “noting” explaining its loss or current location qualifies as “information” that the CPIO must provide.

---

Key Points for the District Court RTI Submission to the Commission

Overall, highlight these specific contradictions in the CPIO’s stance:

CPIO’s Claim	The Reality / Counter-Argument
Information can be obtained via Court Rules.	Impossible. Court Rules only provide copies of documents in the paper book, and this document is missing and not in the paper book.
The matter is Subjudice.	Irrelevant. The administrative negligence of losing a file is not a judicial proceeding, and therefore it does not interfere with the judge’s decision-making.
Rule 25 Rejection.	Misapplied. Rule 25 is merely a “bridge” to other rules; so if the other rules (Civil/Criminal) don’t cover “missing administrative transmittals,” no one can use Rule 25.

---

District Court RTI: Contact Details and Reference Numbers

Based on the appeal records and the official directories of the concerned judicial and information authorities, the following structured details apply to this District Court RTI case.

1. Uttar Pradesh Information Commission (UPIC)

Specifically, this is the commission responsible for the 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: Track the hearing room (S1) and date at the UPIC Cause List Portal: https://upsic.up.gov.in/cispu/view_weekly_cause_list

---

2. Public Information Officer (PIO) – Respondent 1

This is the officer who initially rejected the District Court RTI 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

---

3. First Appellate Authority (FAA) – Respondent 2

This is the authority that did not entertain the 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

---

4. Key Digital Portals for District Court RTI (UP Judicial)

Together, these official links serve filing and tracking needs 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