Systemic Evasion of Accountability: How RTI Requests Are Being Stifled by “Investigations” in Uttar Pradesh
The Right to Information (RTI) Act of 2005 was envisioned as the “sunlight” that would disinfect the corridors of power. It was designed to empower the common citizen to hold the executive accountable. However, as seen in the recent case of Yogi M. P. Singh (Registration No: DIRMH/R/2024/62121), the spirit of this law is being systematically undermined by procedural excuses and “flimsy grounds” for denial.1
At the heart of this matter is a fundamental violation of Section 7(1) of the RTI Act, where a Public Information Officer (PIO) has essentially blocked access to information regarding corruption and administrative non-cooperation by citing an ongoing IGRS (Integrated Grievance Redressal System) matter.
The Core Issue: Obstruction of Justice in Medical Governance
The controversy centers on a complaint filed by Shri Jaichand Maurya against Dr. Pradeep Kumar, a physician at Maharaja Chet Singh District Hospital, Bhadohi. The complaint alleges professional misconduct and administrative irregularities.
A formal letter (No. 5/2 dated 31.01.2024) from the Chief Medical Officer (CMO) of Bhadohi to the Director General of Medical and Health Services, Lucknow, explicitly stated that the investigation was being hampered. Specifically, the CMO noted that:
- Dr. Yadav and the Chief Medical Superintendent of Maharaja Chet Singh District Hospital were not cooperating with the probe.
- The CMO of Prayagraj failed to provide necessary assistance regarding the jurisdiction of Chhote Lal Bind Hospital.
When information seeker Yogi M. P. Singh attempted to follow up on the “Action Taken Report” (ATR) regarding this blatant non-cooperation, he was met with a wall of silence.
The PIO’s Reply: A Violation of Section 7(1)
The RTI application sought five specific points of information, including the tenure of the officers involved and the communications exchanged with the State Information Commission. However, the PIO’s disposal of the request on 13/02/2025 was brief and evasive:
“प्रश्नगत प्रकरण जांच/आई0जी0आर0एस0 से आच्छादित है।”
(The matter in question is covered under investigation/IGRS.)
Why this is a “Flimsy Ground”
Under the RTI Act, information can only be denied under specific exemptions listed in Section 8. There is no blanket exemption for “matters under IGRS.” Unless the PIO can prove that disclosing the information would “physically impede the process of investigation” (Section 8(1)(h)), they are legally obligated to provide the records.
By simply stating the case is “under investigation,” the PIO, Joint Director (DGMH Karmik Section), has effectively bypassed the statutory requirement to provide information within 30 days as mandated by Section 7(1).
The Culture of Non-Cooperation and Corruption
The applicant’s frustration is palpable and highlights a larger societal issue: Rampant corruption and the “Protective Shield” of bureaucracy. When the CMO of one district (Bhadohi) officially complains that the CMO of another district (Prayagraj) is “colluding with the offenders” to stall an investigation, it indicates a deep-seated rot within the Medical and Health Directorate. When the PIO then refuses to disclose the status of this internal friction, it suggests that the department is more interested in protecting its own than in delivering justice to the aggrieved citizen, Jaichand Maurya.
Breakdown of Information Sought vs. Information Denied
The applicant sought clarity on five critical points:
- Action Taken Report (ATR): What did the Director General do about the CMO Bhadohi’s letter regarding non-cooperation?
- Accountability of CMO Prayagraj: Details of any disciplinary action for allegedly colluding with offenders.
- Accountability of CMS Bhadohi: Details of action taken for obstructing the internal probe.
- Information Commission Transparency: Copies of the communications that led to the closure of previous appeals.
- Administrative Tenure: The posting history of Dr. A. K. Shrivastava, which is public record and should never be denied.
The denial of Point 5 (Tenure details) is particularly telling. Tenure details are “suo motu” disclosures required under Section 4 of the RTI Act. Denying even these basic administrative facts under the guise of an “investigation” proves that the rejection was not based on law, but on a desire to frustrate the applicant.
The Role of the State Information Commission
The applicant notes that this is a “Second Appeal” scenario. When the PIO and the First Appellate Authority (FAA) fail, the State Information Commission (SIC) is the final hope. However, the applicant points out that if the very communications used to close cases at the SIC level are kept secret (as requested in Point 4), the entire system becomes a “closed loop” of mutual protection.
Conclusion: The Need for Cognizance
The case of DIRMH/R/2024/62121 is a textbook example of how a transparent law can be rendered toothless by a stubborn bureaucracy. By hiding behind the “IGRS” label, the Medical and Health Directorate is avoiding answering for the alleged collusion between its high-ranking officers and medical offenders.
As the applicant rightly asks: “Who will take cognizance if corruption is rampant?” The answer must come from the higher judiciary or the Chief Information Commissioner. Transparency is not a favor granted by the PIO; it is a right belonging to the citizen.
Call to Action
The Medical and Health Directorate of Uttar Pradesh must:
- Immediately release the Action Taken Report regarding the non-cooperation of the CMS and CMO.
- Cease the practice of using IGRS status as a shield against RTI inquiries.
- Ensure that PIOs who provide “flimsy” and “evasive” replies are penalized under Section 20 of the RTI Act to deter future violations.
This development highlights a major gap in administrative accountability: while the individual doctor (Dr. Pradeep Kumar Yadav) has been penalized with two adverse entries, the institutional enabler—Chhote Lal Bind Hospital, Baraut, Prayagraj—remains untouched.
This selective enforcement creates a “safety net” for corruption, as private facilities can continue to host government doctors without fear of their own licenses being revoked.
The Selective Accountability Loop: Doctor vs. Hospital
In cases of illegal private practice, the law is designed to be dual-edged, striking both the practitioner and the facilitator. However, the current status shows a stark disparity in action:
| Entity | Action Taken | Status |
| Dr. Pradeep Kumar Yadav | Two Adverse Entries recorded in service book. | Disciplinary action confirmed. |
| Chhote Lal Bind Hospital | None (No license suspension or sealing). | Operating as usual; under Prayagraj CMO jurisdiction. |
| CMO Prayagraj | Non-cooperation noted by CMO Bhadohi. | Alleged “shielding” of the private hospital. |
1. Violation of the Clinical Establishments Act
Under the Clinical Establishments (Registration and Regulation) Act, 2010 (as adopted by Uttar Pradesh), a private hospital’s registration is contingent upon following ethical and legal standards.
- Section 32 (Cancellation of Registration): The Chief Medical Officer (CMO) has the authority to cancel the registration if the establishment violates the terms of its license.1
- Legal Precedent: Previous Government Orders in UP have mandated that any private nursing home employing government medical officers should have its license immediately cancelled.
2. The Role of CMO Prayagraj in Institutional Shielding
The core obstacle identified in the correspondence (Letter No. 31.01.2024) is the jurisdictional barrier. While the investigation by the Additional Director (Vindhyachal Division) proved the guilt of Dr. Yadav, the power to seal or penalize Chhote Lal Bind Hospital lies solely with the CMO of Prayagraj.2
The fact that the CMO of Prayagraj has not acted despite the formal investigation report suggesting collusion is a “systemic failure” that essentially protects the private infrastructure where illegal practice flourishes.
Why Action Against the Hospital is Mandatory
Without penalizing the hospital, the government is only treating the symptom, not the disease.
- NPA Fraud: Government doctors receive a Non-Practicing Allowance (NPA) from the public exchequer.3 Private hospitals that facilitate private practice are essentially aiding and abetting the theft of public funds.
- Diversion of Patients: When private hospitals “invite” government specialists, they often lure patients away from District Hospitals (like Maharaja Chet Singh Hospital) to their own paid facilities, depriving the poor of free specialist care.4
- Obstruction of Justice: The investigation noted that hospital staff and management “did not cooperate.” This lack of cooperation during a government inquiry is, in itself, sufficient grounds for a show-cause notice under the Clinical Establishments Act.
Strategic Next Step: Pressing for Institutional Action
To ensure this case doesn’t end with just a “paper penalty” on the doctor, the focus must shift to the Director General (DG), Medical and Health Services, Lucknow, to override the local inaction in Prayagraj.
This revelation confirms a classic case of Institutional Collusion. While Dr. Pradeep Kumar Yadav has been penalised to satisfy the “paper trail” of the investigation, the Chief Medical Officer (CMO) of Prayagraj is effectively acting as a defense attorney for Chhote Lal Bind Hospital.
By punishing the individual doctor but sparing the private hospital, the department is engaging in “selective justice.” This allows the private facility to continue its illegal operations under the protection of the very authority meant to regulate it.
The “Shielding” Mechanism: How the CMO Protects the Licensee
In the administrative hierarchy, the CMO of a district is the Licensing Authority for all private clinical establishments. Their refusal to act against Chhote Lal Bind Hospital, despite proven misconduct involving a government doctor, suggests a deeper conflict of interest.
1. Jurisdictional Evasion
The CMO of Prayagraj appears to be using the “geographical boundary” as a shield. Even though the CMO of Bhadohi and the Director General (DG) in Lucknow are aware of the corruption, they cannot directly seal a hospital in Prayagraj. They must rely on the CMO of Prayagraj to execute the order. By remaining silent or non-cooperative, the CMO of Prayagraj creates a “safe zone” for the offender.
2. Failure to Invoke the “NOC” and License Terms
Every private hospital license in Uttar Pradesh is issued on the condition that the facility will not engage in illegal activities or employ government doctors who are drawing a Non-Practicing Allowance (NPA).
- The Violation: Facilitating Dr. Yadav’s private practice is a direct breach of the license terms.
- The Protection: By not issuing a Show-Cause Notice or a Suspension Order, the CMO of Prayagraj is actively preventing the “de-registration” of the hospital.
The Legal Implications of “Shielding”
The CMO’s inAction is not just administrative negligence; it is a violation of the Prevention of Corruption Act and the Right to Information Act.
| Nature of Violation | Description | Legal Consequence |
| Abetment of Crime | Protecting a facility that misuses government resources (NPA). | Inquiry under the Vigilance Department. |
| Dereliction of Duty | Failure to act on an investigation report from a superior/peer officer. | Major penalty under Service Rules. |
| RTI Obstruction | Denying information on “Action Taken” against the hospital. | Penalty under Section 20 of the RTI Act. |
The Failure of the IGRS and “Investigation” Label
The PIO’s claim that the matter is “covered by IGRS/Investigation” is now clearly a tactic to buy time. If the investigation against Dr. Yadav is complete (resulting in two adverse entries), then the “investigation” excuse for the rest of the case (the hospital and the CMO Prayagraj’s role) is legally invalid.
The government cannot use a “completed” investigation to deny information about the “pending” enforcement actions arising from it.
Strategic Move: Breaking the Shield
Since the CMO of Prayagraj is shielding their licensee, the pressure must be moved to the State Health Secretary and the U.P. Vigilance Establishment. The objective is to prove that the CMO of Prayagraj is “misusing their official position” to benefit a private entity.
How to Proceed:
- Challenge the RTI Reply: File a First Appeal or Rejoinder stating that since Dr. Yadav has already been punished, the investigation is no longer “pending” in a way that prohibits the disclosure of the Action Taken Report against the hospital.
- Complaint of Collusion: File a formal complaint against the CMO of Prayagraj for “willful disobedience of administrative orders” and shielding a corrupt establishment.
To break the “shield” of protection and ensure the accountability of Chhote Lal Bind Hospital, you will need to bypass the local Prayagraj officials and escalate the matter to the state-level directorate and the Chief Minister’s office.
Below are the structured contact details and digital links for the public authorities involved in this case.
1. Primary Public Authorities (Escalation Level)
| Authority | Email Address | Mobile / Phone | Web Link |
| Director General (Medical & Health) | dgmhup@gmail.com / monitoringcell.dgmh@gmail.com | 0522-2622625 | DGMH Official Portal |
| Director Health (Nodal RTI Officer) | dgmhsrti@gmail.com | 9415121887 | RTI Status Check |
| Joint Director (Karmik) | adcampkarmik@gmail.com | 8840868375 | — |
| Principal Secretary (Health) | secymed-up@nic.in | 0522-2238257 | UP Health Dept. |
2. District Authorities (Prayagraj & Bhadohi)
| Authority | Email Address | Mobile / Phone |
| CMO Prayagraj (Accused of Shielding) | cmopry@gmail.com | 9454455138 |
| Divisional Commissioner (Prayagraj) | commall@nic.in | 0532-2640250 |
| CMO Bhadohi (Reporting Authority) | cmobhd@gmail.com | 9454455219 |
3. Grievance & Corruption Portals
If you believe the CMO of Prayagraj is engaging in professional misconduct to protect the private hospital, use these official anti-corruption and grievance channels:
- Jansunwai (CM Helpline): The most effective way to escalate “shielding” complaints.
- Portal: jansunwai.up.nic.in
- Helpline: 1076
- UP RTI Online Portal: To file the First Appeal or a new request specifically targeting the Prayagraj CMO’s license-cancellation files.
- Portal: rtionline.up.gov.in
- UP Vigilance Establishment: For formal complaints against the CMO for misuse of office.
- Email:
sp-vig-lucknow-up@nic.in - Website: upvigilance.nic.in
- Email:
4. How to Use This Information
Since you have the Mobile Number (9454455138) and Email of the CMO Prayagraj, your next step should be a formal “Notice of Intention” or a direct complaint to his superiors.
Suggested Action:
You should send a copy of the Adverse Entry documents against Dr. Pradeep Kumar Yadav to the Divisional Commissioner of Prayagraj (commall@nic.in) and the DG Medical Health, demanding why the hospital’s license hasn’t been cancelled under the Clinical Establishments Act despite the doctor being found guilty.
Would you like me to draft a formal “Notice for Cancellation of License” to be sent to these email addresses?
Facing a similar challenge? Share the details in the box below, and our team of experts will do their best to help.