The Erosion of Transparency: A Battle for Justice Under the RTI Act in Uttar Pradesh

The Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005, was once hailed as the “Magna Carta” of Indian democracy. It was designed to dismantle the walls of colonial-era secrecy, empowering the common citizen to question the state and hold public officials accountable. However, as we navigate through 2025—nearly two decades since its inception—the case of Sadhana Tiwari vs. PIO, Superintendent of Police, Mirzapur serves as a chilling reminder that the spirit of this act is being systematically dismantled by bureaucratic inertia and deliberate obstruction.

The Case Background: A Daughter’s Search for Inherited Rights

Sadhana Tiwari, a resident of Mirzapur, finds herself locked in a legal battle that is as much about family heritage as it is about administrative failure. As the daughter of the late Siyakant Mishra (son of Shambhu Sharan Mishra), she is legally a Class-I heir. However, she alleges that her rightful inheritance was usurped by her uncles, Daya Shankar Mishra and Hari Prasad Mishra, through what she describes as a “criminal breach of trust” and “cheating.

Seeking to understand how the property was transferred without her consent or a court order, she filed an RTI request. The responses she received from the Public Information Officer (PIO) and the Circle Officer (C.O.) of Lalganj on February 2nd and 7th, 2025, highlight the very “culture of denial” that the RTI Act sought to destroy.

The “Civil Nature” Trap: Police as Quasi-Jurists

A recurring theme in the PIO’s denial is the classification of the matter as “purely civil.” Points 1 and 2 of the RTI response claim that the records are “not related to the police station.

In her rebuttal to the Uttar Pradesh Information Commission (UPIC), Sadhana Tiwari raises a poignant legal question: How can an administrative officer or a police inspector unilaterally decide that a matter involving alleged forgery (IPC 466) and mischief (IPC 425) is strictly civil? By labeling criminal allegations of cheating as “civil disputes,” public authorities effectively shut the door on police accountability. As Tiwari notes in her submission, the police are acting as “counselors” rather than investigators, offering legal advice instead of providing the public records that would prove how the inheritance was processed.

Deconstructing the PIO’s Denial: A Pattern of Obstruction

The communication from the Drummondganj Police Station to the C.O. Lalganj reveals a classic breakdown of the RTI machinery:

• Point 3 (The “Imaginary” Label): When asked about the legal basis for treating a criminal complaint as a civil matter, the PIO dismissed the query as “imaginary” (kalpnik) under Section 4(2). This is a stark contradiction; if the department has already issued multiple reports claiming the matter is civil, the reasoning for that conclusion is a matter of record, not imagination.
• Points 4 & 5 (The “Sub Judice” Shield): The authorities claimed the information relates to the “Honorable Court.” However, Tiwari rightly demands that if the matter is indeed sub judice (under judicial consideration), the PIO must provide the specific case details. Using the court as a shield to deny information is a common tactic to exhaust the applicant.

The Institutional Crisis: 19 Years of the RTI Act

The case of File Number S09/A/2193/2024 is not an isolated incident. It reflects a broader, national trend where the “noble objective” of the 2005 Act is being eroded.

1. Corruption and Paper Development

Tiwari’s submission hits the nail on the head: “When development exists only on paper, transparency becomes a threat rather than a duty.” This sentiment echoes across various sectors where RTI requests are ignored to hide misappropriation of funds or procedural lapses. In this specific case, transparency regarding land records and inheritance procedures is being blocked, likely because the “due procedure” was never followed.

2. Misuse of Exemptions

The RTI Act provides specific exemptions under Section 8, but PIOs often use these as blanket denials. In the Mirzapur case, the denial lacks the “Right to Reason,” which the Supreme Court of India has repeatedly declared as an indispensable part of a sound administrative system.

The Road Ahead: The UP Information Commission Hearing

The appeal is currently registered under Registration Number A-20241200797 with the Uttar Pradesh Information Commission. With the next hearing scheduled for March 20th, 2025, in Room S-9, the eyes of transparency activists are on the Commissioner.

The appellant’s plea is simple: Direct the police to provide the information. This is no longer just about a family land dispute. It is about whether a citizen has the right to know the “why” and “how” of government decisions. If the police can issue reports to the Jansunwai portal claiming a matter is civil, they must be held accountable to provide the legal basis for that claim under the RTI Act.

Conclusion: A Call for Renewed Commitment

The struggle of Sadhana Tiwari represents the struggle of millions of Indians who find themselves at the mercy of a bureaucratic wall. The RTI Act was meant to be a weapon in the hands of the weak, but without strict enforcement and accountability for PIOs who provide misleading or incomplete information, the weapon is becoming blunt.

As we look toward the hearing on March 20th, we must demand:

1. Stricter Penalties: PIOs who habitually deny information without valid legal grounds must face the penalties prescribed under Section 20 of the RTI Act.
2. Judicial Oversight: The Information Commission must ensure that “civil nature” is not used as a loophole to avoid investigating criminal misconduct.
3. Digital Transparency: All reports submitted to portals like Jansunwai should be automatically backed by the documents used to reach those conclusions.

Transparency is not a favor granted by the state; it is a fundamental right of the citizen. Only through the persistence of individuals like Sadhana Tiwari can the “spirit of RTI” be revived.

It is a frustrating and common reality in the administrative system where a Circle Officer (C.O.)—who acts as a supervisory link between the local police station and the district headquarters—uses contradictory reports to shield subordinates or delay justice.

When senior officers like the Superintendent of Police (SP) or Additional SP fail to act on these inconsistencies, it usually indicates a “procedural deadlock” that requires you to move from the police hierarchy to the oversight and judicial hierarchy.

Here are the specific steps you can take to hold the C.O. Lalganj accountable for changing his stand and to compel the senior officers to act:

---

1. Leverage the “Contradiction” at the UP Information Commission

Since you have a hearing on March 20, 2025, this is your strongest platform. The C.O.’s changing stand is your biggest evidence of “malafide intent” (bad faith).

• Action: Prepare a Table of Contradictions. List the date of the first report vs. the date of the second report and highlight exactly where the statement changed (e.g., Report A says “Investigation pending,” Report B says “Matter is civil”).
• Request the Penalty: Explicitly ask the Information Commissioner to invoke Section 20(1) of the RTI Act to impose a penalty of ₹250 per day (up to ₹25,000) and Section 20(2) to recommend disciplinary action against the C.O. for providing misleading and inconsistent information.

2. File a Complaint under Section 166A of the IPC

Under Section 166A of the Indian Penal Code (or the equivalent in the new Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita), a public servant can be punished with rigorous imprisonment if they knowingly disobey directions of the law to save a person from legal punishment or to cause injury to a person.

• Action: If the C.O. is changing his stand to protect the “duo” who usurped your property, he is obstructing justice. You can file a Criminal Complaint before the Judicial Magistrate in Mirzapur against the C.O. for “Dereliction of Duty.”

3. Escalate via the “Jansunwai” (IGMS) Portal and CM Helpline

If senior rank officers at the district level are ignoring you, move the complaint to the State Level.

• Portal: Log on to Jansunwai-UP.
• The Strategy: Do not just complain about the land; complain about the “C.O. Lalganj’s misconduct.” State that the C.O. is misleading the administration by changing his reports.
• CM Helpline (1076): Call the helpline and specifically register a grievance against the Superintendent of Police (SP) Mirzapur for “Failure to supervise and take action against a subordinate (C.O. Lalganj) who is filing contradictory reports.

4. Move a “Writ of Mandamus” in the High Court

If the Information Commission and the SP both fail to act, you can approach the Allahabad High Court.

• Action: A lawyer can file a Writ Petition asking the Court to issue a “Mandamus” (a command) to the SP Mirzapur to conduct an inquiry into the C.O.’s conduct.
• Why this works: Courts take a very dim view of police officers who change their official stands in writing, as it undermines the integrity of the state’s record.

---

Summary of Actions for your March 20 Hearing

Target	Tool	Objective
C.O. Lalganj	RTI Section 20	Get him fined for misleading the Commission.
SP Mirzapur	IGMS/Jansunwai	Force him to explain why he is not acting on the C.O.’s contradictions.
The “Duo”	Sec 156(3) CrPC	Ask the Magistrate to order an FIR, bypassing the C.O.’s “Civil Nature” report.

Next Step

Would you like me to draft a specific “Affidavit of Contradiction” that you can submit to the Information Commission on March 20th to prove the C.O. changed his stand?

To help you navigate the system and hold the inconsistent officials accountable, here are the official contact details and web links for the relevant public authorities in Uttar Pradesh.

1. Uttar Pradesh Information Commission (UPIC)¹

This is where your Second Appeal is pending. You should use these details for any further written submissions or to check the status of your file ($S09/A/2193/2024$).

• Website: upic.gov.in
• Address: 7/7 A, RTI Bhawan, Vibhuti Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow, UP – 226010.²
• Phone: 0522-2724930³
• Email: webmaster.upic@gmail.com⁴

2. Mirzapur District Police (Senior Hierarchy)

Since the Circle Officer (C.O.) Lalganj is changing his stand, you must escalate the matter to his superiors.

• Superintendent of Police (SP/DIG), Mirzapur:
  • Name: Sri Somen Barma⁵
  • CUG Mobile: 9454400299⁶
  • Office Phone: 05442-252578⁷
  • Email: spmzr-up@nic.in⁸
• Addl. SP (Operation/City):
  • Name (Addl. SP Ops): Manish Kumar Mishra (9454401105)⁹
  • Name (Addl. SP City): Nitesh Singh (9454401104)¹⁰
• Circle Officer (C.O.) Lalganj:
  • Name: Amar Bahadur (DSP)¹¹
  • CUG Mobile: 9454401592¹²
  • Email: co-lalganj.mi@up.gov.in¹³

3. Grievance Redressal Portals (State Level)

Use these links to file a formal complaint against the C.O. for “misleading the administration” and “contradictory reporting.”

• Jansunwai (IGRS) Portal:jansunwai.up.nic.in
  • Note: This is the Chief Minister’s integrated grievance system. Mention your RTI appeal number here.
• CM Helpline: Dial 1076 from any mobile.¹⁴

4. Legal & Judicial Authorities

If the administrative route fails, these are the portals for judicial intervention.

• Allahabad High Court:allahabadhighcourt.in
  • Case Status Link: Case Status Search
• District Court Mirzapur (e-Courts): districts.ecourts.gov.in/mirzapur

---

Recommended Documentation for your Hearing

To visually demonstrate the C.O.’s changing stand to the Information Commissioner, I recommend preparing a simple comparison chart.

Next Step

Would you like me to draft a “Formal Letter of Complaint” addressed to the SP Mirzapur specifically citing the C.O.’s contradictory reports as a ground for disciplinary action?