The RTI Paradox: When Transparency Meets Bureaucratic Resistance

In an era where the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005 is hailed as the “sunlight that disinfects” government functioning, the case of Sadhana Tiwari vs. Revenue Department (Mirzapur) serves as a sobering reminder of the hurdles citizens face. Despite a robust legal framework designed to ensure accountability, the implementation often stutters when it encounters the very machinery it seeks to oversee.

This blog post explores the recent second appeal filed by Ms. Tiwari, highlighting the systemic challenges of obtaining information when government officials choose silence over transparency.

---

The Case Background: A Quest for Accountability

The crux of this legal battle stems from a grievance regarding ancestral property inheritance and alleged forgery. Ms. Sadhana Tiwari, a resident of Mirzapur, Uttar Pradesh, raised concerns through the Jansunwai (Public Grievance) portal regarding the omission of her name from inheritance records following the death of her grandfather.

According to the law of the land, specifically the UP Revenue Code 2006, Ms. Tiwari claims status as a Class-1 heir. However, she alleges that local officials—including the Lekhpal, Revenue Inspector, and Tehsildar—colluded with relatives to usurp her rights.

---

The Procedural Timeline: A Cycle of Silence

The RTI Act is built on a time-bound structure. When a citizen asks a question, the government must respond within 30 days. In this case, that timeline was ignored at every level.

1. The Initial Request (Section 6(1))

• Date: October 14, 2024
• Target: PIO Tarun Pratap Singh (Tehsildar, Lalganj)
• The Ask: Information on who authorized the Tehsil to handle a police-related grievance and the legal basis for their conclusions.
• Result: No response within the 30-day stipulated period.

2. The First Appeal (Section 19(1))

• Date: December 11, 2024
• Target: First Appellate Authority (FAA) Gulab Chandra (SDM, Lalganj)
• The Ask: Intervention due to the PIO’s failure to provide information.
• Result: Silence. The FAA failed to conduct a hearing or pass an order.

3. The Second Appeal (Section 19(3))

• Date: February 19, 2025
• Current Status: Filed with the Uttar Pradesh Information Commission (Lucknow).

---

The Core Arguments: Why This Matters

Ms. Tiwari’s appeal highlights three critical failures in the current administrative setup:

A. The “Conflict of Interest” Trap

One of the most profound questions raised in the RTI application is: “Under what provision of law can officials (Lekhpal/Tehsildar) entertain complaints concerning irregularities and corruption against themselves?” When a grievance involves the conduct of a specific office, sending that grievance back to the same office for a “report” creates a loop where the accused becomes the judge. This, as the appellant notes, is a “mockery of the law.”

B. Insolence Toward the RTI Act

The RTI Act is not a suggestion; it is a mandate. The refusal of the PIO and the FAA to even acknowledge the applications is described in the appeal as “insolence” and “tantamount to anarchy.” When officials ignore the law without fear of repercussions, the democratic fabric weakens.

C. The Vulnerability of Heirs

The case also sheds light on how inheritance laws are often bypassed at the grassroots level. Ms. Tiwari argues that because her father predeceased her grandfather, she was the direct Class-1 heir. The omission of her name while she was a minor suggests deep-rooted corruption within the local revenue records system.

---

The “Information Blackout” as a Tool of Corruption

Corruption isn’t always about the exchange of money; often, it is the withholding of information. By not providing the names of the staff who authorized reports or the legal provisions used to justify their actions, the department effectively shields its employees from legal scrutiny.

---

What the Second Appeal Seeks

Filed under Registration Number A-20250200996, the appeal to the Chief Information Commissioner in Lucknow is a plea for:

1. Transparency: Forcing the Revenue Department to disclose the documents and logic behind their reports.
2. Accountability: Penalizing the PIO and FAA for their failure to perform their statutory duties.
3. Justice: Ensuring that grievances aren’t just “marked closed” on a portal but are actually investigated by impartial authorities.

---

Conclusion: The Road Ahead

The case of Sadhana Tiwari is a microcosm of the struggle for transparency in rural and semi-urban India. The RTI Act of 2005 remains one of the most powerful tools in the hands of the common man, but its efficacy depends entirely on the Information Commission’s willingness to punish non-compliance.

If the “gatekeepers” of information—the PIOs and FAAs—continue to ignore applications with impunity, the Act risks becoming a dead letter. We look toward the Uttar Pradesh Information Commission to uphold the spirit of the law and ensure that “anarchy in the working of public authority” is curbed.

---

Key Takeaways for RTI Applicants:

• Keep Records: Always keep copies of your original application and postal receipts.
• Monitor Deadlines: If you don’t hear back in 30 days, move to the First Appeal immediately.
• Use the Commission: If the First Appeal fails, the Second Appeal is your legal right to take the matter to the state level.

What do you think? Should there be stricter penalties for officials who ignore RTI requests? Let us know in the comments below.

To help you further, I have outlined the specific legal provisions of the RTI Act that you can use to demand accountability. Since both the PIO and the FAA have remained silent, your case has moved from a simple “request for information” to a “complaint against negligence.

---

Strategic Legal Paths for Your Appeal

While your Second Appeal is already in progress, understanding the penal provisions will help you argue your case more effectively during the hearing (whether online or offline).

1. Invoking Section 20(1) – Financial Penalty

The Information Commission has the power to impose a penalty on the PIO (Tarun Pratap Singh) if they find that he:

• Refused the application without reasonable cause.
• Did not respond within the 30-day time limit.
• Malafidely denied the request.

The Penalty: The Commission can impose a fine of ₹250 per day from the date the information was due until it is actually provided, up to a maximum of ₹25,000.

2. Invoking Section 20(2) – Disciplinary Action

If the Commission believes the PIO has persistently failed in his duties without a valid reason, it can recommend disciplinary action against the officer under the service rules applicable to them.

3. Seeking Compensation (Section 19(8)(b))

As the appellant, you have faced mental agony and perhaps financial costs in pursuing this matter because the officers failed to do their job. You can request the Commission to order the Public Authority (Revenue Department) to pay you monetary compensation for the loss or detriment suffered.

---

How to Prepare for the Hearing

When the Uttar Pradesh Information Commission schedules your hearing, keep these points ready for your submission:

• The “Deemed Refusal” Argument: Under Section 7(2) of the Act, if the PIO fails to give a decision within 30 days, it is legally considered a “deemed refusal.” This is your strongest point.
• Highlight the Conflict of Interest: Emphasize to the Commissioner that you are asking for information about a grievance where the PIO himself is an accused party (the 5th offender). This explains why he is intentionally withholding information.
• The FAA’s Negligence: Point out that the SDM (Gulab Chandra) did not fulfill his statutory duty to hear your first appeal, which forced you to take the matter to Lucknow.

---

Suggested Next Step

Would you like me to draft a formal “Rejoinder” or Written Submission? You can send this document to the Information Commission in Lucknow to supplement your appeal. It will formally highlight the specific sections (like Section 20) mentioned above to ensure the Commission considers imposing a penalty on the officers.