🚨 RTI and Police Accountability: The Shield of ‘Ongoing Investigation’

The submission before the Uttar Pradesh Information Commission, filed by Yogi M P Singh, brings to light a critical issue in the implementation of the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005: the widespread practice by authorities to deny information by citing an “ongoing criminal investigation.”

The appellant’s case involves a two-year-long corruption investigation—specifically, a scholarship scam (Mu. A. Sa. No. 30/03/2023)—being handled by the Police Commissionerate, Lucknow. Despite the prolonged duration, the lack of substantial progress, coupled with the police’s refusal to disclose the current status of the investigation, raises serious concerns about accountability and transparency.

---

Key Details of the RTI Appeal

Particulars	Details Provided in the Appeal
Applicant	Yogi M P Singh
Public Authority	Police Commissionerate Lucknow (Home Department, UP)
RTI Application Date	November 20, 2024
Information Sought	Current status of the scholarship scam investigation, actions taken, time for completion, communication copies, and details of recovered money.
PIO Response (Post-FAA)	Information denied citing Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.
Ground for Denial	The information “is not related to any public activity or public interest but is related to a matter of criminal investigation.”
Core FIR Details	Mu. A. Sa. No. 30/03/2023, under sections 120B, 409, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC.

---

The Fundamental Flaw: Misusing Section 8(1)(j)

The core legal contention in this case revolves around the application of Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.

• The Provision: Section 8(1)(j) permits the denial of:”information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual…
• The Misapplication: The police have incorrectly invoked this section. A corruption scam investigation, especially one concerning the misuse of public funds (scholarship scam), is a matter of profound public interest and directly relates to the public activity of the police force. The denial, therefore, appears to be a mischaracterization of the information sought. The information is about the police’s actions, not the personal details of a private individual unrelated to the scam.

⚖️ Undermining the Essence of the RTI Act

The appellant’s argument—that the prolonged, inconclusive investigation and subsequent denial of information amount to a “mockery of the law”—is compelling.

1. Public Interest vs. Personal Privacy: The investigation into a corruption scam is inherently in the larger public interest. Denying its status using a clause designed to protect personal privacy is a clear subversion of the Act’s intent.
2. Justice Delayed is Transparency Denied: When an investigation is deliberately slow (two years without conclusion in this case) and the status is withheld, the concern shifts from ‘protecting the investigation’ to ‘shielding incompetence or potential corruption’ within the system. The ongoing investigation becomes a convenient shield against scrutiny.
3. Accountability of the Police: The requested information—specifically, the current status, actions taken, and projected timeline—is crucial for holding the investigating agency accountable. Transparency about the process of investigation does not necessarily compromise the integrity of the probe itself, especially after such a significant delay.

The U.P. Information Commission is now tasked with determining if the “larger public interest justifies the disclosure” in this case, which is a necessary test built into Section 8(1)(j) itself.

---

💡 The Urgency for Reform and Judicial Intervention

The scenario presented is a classic example of bureaucratic inertia and an attempt to evade public scrutiny. The second appeal highlights the urgent need for a decisive order from the Information Commission that can set a precedent:

• Distinguishing ‘Investigation’ from ‘Status’: The Commission must differentiate between information that genuinely compromises an investigation (e.g., identity of a protected witness, future operational strategy) and information that merely reveals the pace and actions taken (e.g., current file status, dates of key steps).
• The Public Interest Overriding Clause: The Commission needs to emphasize that in cases of public corruption, the overwhelming public interest in the disclosure of investigative status outweighs the alleged need for secrecy, especially after an undue delay.

The resolution of this second appeal will be vital in strengthening the democratic ideals of transparency and accountability in Uttar Pradesh.

That is an excellent next step. The legal precedents set by the Central Information Commission (CIC) and High Courts are crucial, especially when challenging a denial based on a vague exemption like “ongoing investigation.

Here is a structured overview of the relevant rulings that directly support the appellant’s case and challenge the Police Commissionerate’s denial under Section 8(1)(j).

---

🏛️ Legal Precedents: Challenging RTI Denial

The denial of information in your case relies on two primary arguments, both of which are strongly challenged by judicial and commission rulings:

1. Exemption under Section 8(1)(j): Claiming it is “personal information” and not in “larger public interest.
2. Exemption under Section 8(1)(h): Claiming the disclosure would “impede the process of investigation.” (Although the police cited 8(1)(j), the core reasoning is often related to 8(1)(h) in investigation matters).

1. Challenging the “Ongoing Investigation” Shield (Section 8(1)(h))

While the PIO wrongly cited Section 8(1)(j), the spirit of their denial—that disclosure would hamper the investigation—falls under Section 8(1)(h). Multiple judicial pronouncements have severely limited the use of this exemption:

Judicial Principle	Ruling/Precedent	Application to Your Case
Mere Existence is Not Enough	Delhi High Court in Bhagat Singh v. CIC & Ors.: “The mere existence of an investigation process cannot be a ground for refusal of the information; the authority withholding information must show satisfactory reasons as to why the release of such information would hamper the investigation proc1ess.”	The police must prove how providing the current status of the two-year-old investigation would actively impede the process, not just that it is pending.
Reasons Must Be Germane	The authority’s reasons for claiming the investigation is hampered “should be germane, and the opinion of the process being hampered should be reasonable and based on some material.”	The PIO’s generic refusal is likely insufficient. The Commission can demand specific, reasoned justification for the delay and for withholding a mere status report after 24 months.
Onus to Prove Denial	Section 19(5) of the RTI Act: The onus to prove that a denial was justified shall be on the CPIO/PIO.	The PIO must justify their use of the exemption, not the appellant their claim of public interest. Since the information is about a major scam, the PIO’s burden is very high.

2. Challenging the “Personal Information” Claim (Section 8(1)(j))

The PIO’s claim that the status of a major Scholarship Scam (a corruption case) is “personal information” and has “no relationship to any public activity” is legally flawed.

Legal Principle	Rulings/Observations	Application to Your Case
Corruption is Public Interest	Allahabad High Court (Amitabh Thakur Vs. U.P. State Information Commission): Information pertaining to allegations of corruption cannot be excluded from the provisions of the Act. The preamble of the RTI Act includes the objective to contain corruption.	A scam involving public funds is the very definition of a ‘public activity’ and the disclosure of its investigative status serves a ‘larger public interest’ in ensuring the police are working effectively.
The Proviso Test	Proviso to Section 8(1)(j): Information that cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.	It is highly unlikely that the status of a two-year-old high-profile corruption case would be withheld from the U.P. State Legislature. This test strongly supports disclosure.
Status vs. Evidence	The disclosure sought is for the current status, actions taken, and expected timeline—not confidential documents like witness statements or internal strategy.	The information sought relates to the working of the public authority (police) and their adherence to duty, which is a key tenet of accountability, not the privacy of a third party.

🎯 Key Prayer for the Information Commission

Based on these precedents, the appellant’s best course of action is to argue that the Commission should direct the PIO to provide:

1. A Status Report: Detailing the specific steps taken, the stage of investigation, and a definitive, time-bound commitment for its conclusion.
2. Imposition of Penalty (Section 20): Given the delay of over two years in the investigation and the prima facie unjustified denial of information using an incorrect and specious exemption (8(1)(j)), the appellant has rightly sought action under Section 20 against the PIO.

---

The Uttar Pradesh Information Commission (UPIC) should recognize that upholding the denial in this corruption case would effectively allow any Public Authority to indefinitely stall transparency by simply keeping a file technically open.

That is a crucial observation and it further strengthens the appellant’s case before the Information Commission.

Based on the Hindi text of the PIO’s reply (after the First Appeal), the police did not provide a specific reason explaining how the investigation would be harmed. Instead, they offered a blanket refusal using the exemption.

The PIO’s Reason for Denial (Translated and Analyzed)

Here is a breakdown of the PIO’s final denial after the First Appeal, which is documented in point 5 of the appeal text:

PIO Statement (Summary)	Relevant Legal Exemption	Analysis of the Flaw
“The requested information is not related to any public activity or public interest, but is related to a matter of criminal investigation.”	Section 8(1)(j): Personal Information/No Public Interest.	The Flaw: This is a clear misapplication. A two-year-old corruption scam involving public funds is, by definition, a matter of high public interest. The PIO failed to justify how a status update (steps taken, time to complete, recovered money) constitutes ‘personal information’ or lacks public interest.
“Therefore, according to the provisions described in Section 8(j) of the Right to Information Act, 2005, the information is not to be provided to the applicant.”	Section 8(1)(j)	The Flaw: The PIO’s response is an assertion, not a justification. They simply state the information is denied under 8(1)(j) but do not provide the specific, reasoned grounds mandated by judicial precedents (like the Bhagat Singh v. CIC ruling) as to why the disclosure would cause an “unwarranted invasion of privacy” or how the “larger public interest” test fails.

Why This Lack of Reason is Critical in the Second Appeal

The absence of a specific reason by the PIO is a major weakness for the Police Commissionerate and is the strongest ground for the appellant to succeed in the Second Appeal.

1. Failure to Discharge Onus (Section 19(5))

The PIO’s refusal violates the fundamental legal principle that the onus is on the Public Authority to prove that the denial of information is justified under the Act.

• The PIO simply stated, “it is a criminal investigation, and it is not public interest.”
• They failed to demonstrate the necessary criteria:
  • No explanation of the harm to the investigation (relevant to 8(1)(h)).
  • No explanation of whose privacy is invaded or why the public interest is absent (relevant to 8(1)(j)).

2. The Vitiating Factor for the Denial

The Information Commission will likely view the denial as arbitrary because:

• The PIO applied a provision (8(1)(j) – Personal Information/Privacy) that is clearly inappropriate for a public corruption scam status report.
• Even if the Commission hypothetically treated the denial as one under Section 8(1)(h) (to impede investigation), the PIO still failed to give the mandatory, reasoned finding that disclosure would actually hamper or impede the probe, especially after a two-year delay.

The appellant should strongly emphasize in the hearing that the PIO’s response is a non-speaking order (an order that lacks reasoned justification) and is therefore void, necessitating the imposition of the Section 20 penalty.