As the appellant rightly pointed out in his objection to the Commission: “23rd September comes after 24th August. It is not possible to go back in time.” This is not merely a clerical error; rather, it represents a systemic disregard for the facts. When public authorities provide information that is chronologically impossible, it suggests that officials are “manufacturing” responses rather than pulling them from official records.

Selective Compliance and the “Mockery of Law”

Moreover, the case reveals a pattern of selective compliance — itself a clear example of why challenging misleading information in RTI proceedings matters so much. The appellant had originally requested two original documents, which the PIO allegedly denied on September 23. Only after the appellant filed an RTI application on September 24 did officials suddenly “find” the papers and provide them three days later.

Despite this, the PIO refused to give the reason for the initial denial or the identity of the custodian of those papers, and habitually referred back to previous points that offered no real answers. Consequently, this “merry-go-round” of responses has become a classic tactic used by PIOs to frustrate information seekers and protect internal inefficiencies.

Common Tactics of RTI Evasion: (Challenging Misleading Information in RTI Proceedings)

• The Circular Reference: Answering Point B by referring to Point A, which itself contains no relevant information.
• The Portal Shuffle: PIOs claim information sits on a portal without providing specific links or verifying whether the data on the portal actually matches the request.
• The Post-Facto Justification: Officials create a narrative after someone files an appeal to cover up initial negligence.

Why Challenging Misleading Information in RTI Proceedings Matters

The Right to Information Act was not designed to be a “request for a favor.” Instead, it is a statutory right. When PIOs provide misleading or incomplete information, they violate Section 20 of the Act, which allows for penalties of up to ₹25,000 and recommendations for disciplinary action.

The appellant’s plea to the Hon’ble Information Commissioner is a cry for accountability: “How can it be justified to withhold public services arbitrarily and promote anarchy by making a mockery of the law of the land?”

Consequently, if the State Information Commission allows such “time-traveling” logic and evasive tactics to pass without harsh penalties, it sends a message of impunity to every public office in Uttar Pradesh. Transparency cannot survive if gatekeepers treat the law as a mere suggestion.

Restoring Faith in Governance (Challenging Misleading Information in RTI Proceedings)

For the RTI Act to fulfill its objective of “informed citizenry,” oversight bodies must move beyond simple directives to provide information. Instead, they must begin holding PIOs personally accountable for the quality and honesty of their responses.

Therefore, consistent enforcement is the only way to ensure that the RTI remains a “sunlight” law that disinfects corruption, rather than a bureaucratic maze that exhausts the very citizens it was meant to serve.

In the context of the Uttar Pradesh Right to Information Rules, 2015, “Rule 9” (which users often call “Section 9”) specifically governs the appearance of parties during the hearing of a complaint or appeal before the State Information Commission.

Here is a detailed breakdown of what this rule entails:

Key Provisions of Rule 9: Appearance of Parties

According to the official gazette of the UP RTI Rules 2015, Rule 9 outlines how the appellant and the Public Information Officer (PIO) should participate in hearings: (Challenging Misleading Information in RTI Proceedings)

• Presence of the Appellant/Complainant: The appellant or complainant may attend the hearing in person or through an authorized representative.
• Optional Attendance: The rule clarifies that the appellant’s presence is not always mandatory. If the appellant does not appear, the Commission can still decide the case on its merits based on the documents available on record.
• Electronic Presence: In modern practice (and as emphasized in your recent communication), the Commission often conducts hearings via video conferencing or online modes to facilitate easier access for citizens from distant districts like Mirzapur.
• Presence of the PIO: The State Public Information Officer (SPIO) or the officer whom the complaint names must present their case. If they fail to appear without a valid reason, the Commission has the power to proceed ex-parte (in their absence) and may impose penalties.

Important Distinction: Rule vs. Act

It is vital to distinguish between the Rules (set by the State) and the Act (passed by Parliament): (Challenging Misleading Information in RTI Proceedings)

Why This Matters for Your Case

In your specific situation regarding the hearing on 13/02/2025 in Court Number 9: (Challenging Misleading Information in RTI Proceedings)

1. Right to Representation: Under Rule 9, you have the right to present your objections; specifically, regarding the “misleading information” and the “time machine” logic that the PIO utilized.
2. Evidence-Based Decision: Since the PIO’s response contradicts the timeline of your representation (Aug 24 vs Sept 23), you can invoke the Commission’s power under these rules to demand that the PIO produce the original dispatch register or upload logs to prove their claim.
3. Accountability: If the PIO fails to justify the discrepancy during the hearing conducted under Rule 9, the Commission can move toward Section 20 of the Act to impose a penalty for providing “incorrect, incomplete or misleading information.”

That said, it appears there is a significant misunderstanding — or a deliberate misapplication of the law — happening at the Commission. When a Commission dismisses a case by citing Section 9, while the PIO has completely ignored the application, officials are often conflating two very different legal concepts.

Here is the “light” you requested on how officials misuse Section 9 to bypass the “factual position” of non-compliance.

1. The Trap: Section 9 of the RTI Act (Copyright) (Challenging Misleading Information in RTI Proceedings)

In the Central RTI Act, Section 9 is the only ground for rejection that is not based on the exemptions in Section 8. It states:

“A Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer may reject a request for information where such a request for providing access would involve an infringement of copyright subsisting in a person other than the State.”

The Issue: If the PIO did not entertain your application at all, they cannot suddenly invoke Section 9 at the Commission stage. After all, Section 9 requires the PIO to prove that the information exists but belongs to a private third party’s intellectual property. If they never replied, they haven’t established that any copyright exists.

2. The Confusion: Rule 9 of the UP RTI Rules (Withdrawal/Abatement)

Sometimes, the Commission refers instead to Rule 9 of the Uttar Pradesh RTI Rules, 2015. This is a procedural rule regarding the “Death of an Appellant” or “Withdrawal of Appeal.” (Challenging Misleading Information in RTI Proceedings)

• Abatement: If the Commission claims it dismissed the case under Rule 9, it is essentially saying the matter is closed because the appellant passed away or the seeker supposedly received the information to their satisfaction.
• The Conflict: If you are standing there (or online) saying you haven’t received the facts, the Commission cannot legally invoke Rule 9 to close the file.

How to Counter This at Your Hearing (13/02/2025)

If the PIO or the Commission tries to take recourse under Section 9/Rule 9, you should present the following arguments:

A. Challenge the “Deemed Refusal” (Challenging Misleading Information in RTI Proceedings)

Under Section 7(2) of the RTI Act, if a PIO fails to give a decision on the request within 30 days, this counts as a “Deemed Refusal.” Your argument: “Hon’ble Commissioner, Section 9 cannot be invoked retrospectively. The PIO sat on the application and did not entertain it. Under Section 7(2), this is a deemed refusal. A PIO who has refused to act cannot later hide behind the shield of Section 9.”

B. Demand the Factual Record

Since your PIO provided a “time-traveling” date (August 24 for a September 23 request), Section 9 is totally irrelevant here.

Your argument: “The information provided is, undeniably, a factual impossibility. Specifically, Section 9 deals with Copyright; however, my request pertains to Public Records (Notings and Action Taken Reports). Furthermore, Section 4(1)(b) of the Act governs these records, and it mandates proactive disclosure. Quite simply, there is no copyright in a government inquiry report.”

C. Burden of Proof (Section 19(5)) (Challenging Misleading Information in RTI Proceedings)

Remind the Commission that under Section 19(5):

“In any appeal proceedings, the onus to prove that a denial of a request was justified shall be on the State Public Information Officer.”

Comparison of Rejection Grounds

Next Step for You (Challenging Misleading Information in RTI Proceedings)

During your hearing tomorrow, if officials mention Section 9, ask the PIO directly: “Which person’s copyright is being infringed by providing the action-taken report on Mr. Jaychand Maurya’s representation?” They will not have an answer.

To assist you with your hearing on February 13, 2025, and for your records, here are the official contact details and digital links for the authorities mentioned in your appeal.

1. Uttar Pradesh State Information Commission (UPSIC)

This is the primary oversight body for your appeal. You are listed for Court Number 9, presided over by the Hon’ble Information Commissioner.

• Official Website: upsic.up.gov.in
• Court 9 Specific Email: hearingcourts9.upic@up.gov.in
• General Inquiry Email: webmaster-upic@up.gov.in / jansu-section.upic@up.gov.in
• Address: RTI Bhawan, 7/7A, Vibhuti Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow, UP – 226010.
• General Phone: 0522-2724930

2. Office of the Additional Director (Medical, Health & Family Welfare)

This is the Public Authority from whom you are seeking information regarding the representation of Mr. Jaychand Maurya.

• Mirzapur Division Office Email: admhmzp1@gmail.com (This is the email you have already been in contact with).
• Divisional Address: Office of the Additional Director, Medical Health and Family Welfare, Vindhyachal Division, Mirzapur, UP – 231001.
• RTI Status Tracking: UP RTI Online Portal

3. District Administration, Mirzapur

Since your matter involves grievances and IGRS portal uploads, these high-level district contacts are often useful for escalation if the PIO remains non-compliant.

• District Magistrate (DM) Mirzapur Email: dmmir@nic.in
• DM Office Phone: 05442-257400
• CUG Mobile (DM): 9454417567
• Divisional Commissioner Mirzapur Mobile: 9454417505

4. Application Identifiers & Web Links

In short, challenging misleading information in RTI proceedings takes preparation, documentation, and a firm grasp of exactly which law applies where. Would you like a specific email to the AD Health Mirzapur and the Commission today, putting these facts on record before the hearing starts tomorrow?

AD-Vindhyachal (PDF)c email to the AD Health Mirzapur and the Commission today, putting these facts on record before the hearing starts tomorrow?