A second appeal in the scholarship scam against a Public Information Officer (PIO) challenges a recent denial under RTI Section 8(1)(j). This section protects information related to personal privacy. However, the circumstances surrounding the case suggest a significant public interest. This public interest may outweigh individual privacy concerns. The appeal highlights several legal grounds. It argues that transparency is vital in cases of suspected misuse of public funds. It also emphasizes the need for verification of entitlement to scholarships. Additionally, precedents from similar cases are cited. These precedents are used to stress the need for accountability. As the legal proceedings unfold, advocates for transparency and good governance remain hopeful. They hope that this appeal will bring to light the necessary information. This will reinforce the principles of accountability and the fundamental right to information for the public.

🚨 Second Appeal in Scholarship Scam: The Shield of ‘Ongoing Investigation’

This second appeal in the scholarship scam challenges how the Uttar Pradesh Police Commissionerate has handled a long-pending RTI request. First, Yogi M P Singh has filed the submission before the Uttar Pradesh Information Commission. In doing so, he exposes a critical problem in how authorities implement the Right to Information Act, 2005: the widespread practice of denying information by simply citing an “ongoing criminal investigation.”

To begin with, the case behind this second appeal in the scholarship scam centers on a two-year-long corruption investigation (Mu. A. Sa. No. 30/03/2023) that the Police Commissionerate, Lucknow, is handling. However, despite the long duration, the police have made no substantial progress. Moreover, they have also refused to disclose the investigation’s current status. As a result, serious concerns about accountability and transparency have naturally emerged.

---

Key Details of This Second Appeal in the Scholarship Scam

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)	Denied under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act
Ground for Denial	The PIO claimed 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 Behind This Second Appeal: Misusing Section 8(1)(j)

Essentially, the core legal dispute behind this second appeal in the scholarship scam centers on how the police applied Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.

• The Provision: Specifically, Section 8(1)(j) allows authorities to deny “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: Nevertheless, the police invoked this section incorrectly. After all, a corruption scam investigation — especially one involving the misuse of public funds — clearly carries profound public interest and directly relates to the police force’s public activity. Therefore, the denial appears to mischaracterize the information sought. In other words, the request concerns the police’s actions, not a private individual’s personal details.

⚖️ How This Second Appeal in the Scholarship Scam Undermines the RTI Act

Furthermore, the appellant argues that the prolonged, inconclusive investigation — combined with the denial of information — amounts to a “mockery of the law.” Indeed, this argument holds real weight, for several reasons:

1. Public Interest vs. Personal Privacy: First of all, a corruption scam investigation inherently serves the larger public interest. Consequently, denying its status through a clause meant to protect personal privacy clearly subverts the Act’s intent.
2. Justice Delayed Is Transparency Denied: Meanwhile, when authorities keep an investigation open for two years without conclusion, and withhold its status, the concern naturally shifts. Instead of “protecting the investigation,” it starts looking like “shielding incompetence” — or, worse still, potential corruption. In effect, the ongoing investigation becomes a convenient shield against scrutiny.
3. Accountability of the Police: Additionally, the requested information — current status, actions taken, and a projected timeline — matters because it holds the investigating agency accountable. Importantly, disclosing the process of an investigation doesn’t necessarily compromise the probe’s integrity, especially after such a long delay.

Ultimately, then, the U.P. Information Commission must now determine whether “the larger public interest justifies the disclosure” — a test built directly into Section 8(1)(j) itself.

---

💡 Why This Second Appeal in the Scholarship Scam Calls for Reform

Overall, this case is a classic example of bureaucratic inertia and an attempt to dodge public scrutiny. Therefore, this second appeal in the scholarship scam highlights the urgent need for a decisive Information Commission order — specifically, one that can set a precedent:

• Distinguishing ‘Investigation’ from ‘Status’: To that end, the Commission must draw a clear line between information that genuinely compromises an investigation (for example, a protected witness’s identity or future operational strategy) and information that merely reveals the pace of work (for example, the file’s current status or the dates of key steps).
• The Public Interest Overriding Clause: Likewise, in public corruption cases, the Commission should stress that the public’s interest in disclosure outweighs any alleged need for secrecy — particularly after an undue delay.

Ultimately, how this second appeal in the scholarship scam resolves will matter a great deal, since it will help strengthen democratic transparency and accountability across Uttar Pradesh.

---

🏛️ Legal Precedents Cited in This Second Appeal in the Scholarship Scam

To begin with, the Police Commissionerate’s denial rests on two main arguments. However, judicial and commission rulings challenge both of them strongly.

1. Exemption under Section 8(1)(j): First, the police claim the information is “personal” and lacks “larger public interest.”
2. Exemption under Section 8(1)(h): Meanwhile, although the police formally cited 8(1)(j), their underlying reasoning — that disclosure would “impede the investigation” — actually falls under 8(1)(h).

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

Notably, the PIO cited Section 8(1)(j), yet the spirit of the denial reflects Section 8(1)(h) instead. Even so, several judicial rulings have sharply limited how far this exemption can stretch:

Judicial Principle	Ruling/Precedent	Application to This Second Appeal in the Scholarship Scam
Mere Existence Is Not Enough	Delhi High Court in Bhagat Singh v. Chief Information Commissioner: the mere existence of an investigation cannot justify refusal; instead, the authority must show satisfactory reasons why release would hamper the process	Accordingly, the police must prove how disclosing the status of this two-year-old investigation would actively impede it — not simply that the case remains pending
Reasons Must Be Germane	Similarly, any claim that disclosure hampers an investigation must rest on germane, reasonable grounds backed by material evidence	Therefore, the PIO’s generic refusal likely falls short. In turn, the Commission can demand specific, reasoned justification for the delay and for withholding a basic status report after 24 months
Onus to Prove Denial	Furthermore, Section 19(5) of the RTI Act places the burden on the PIO to prove that denial is justified	As a result, the PIO must justify the exemption — not the appellant. Since the case involves a major scam, that burden is especially high

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

Similarly, the PIO claims that a major scholarship scam’s status counts as “personal information” with “no relationship to any public activity.” Yet this claim is legally weak.

Legal PrincipleRulings/ObservationsApplication to This Second Appeal in the Scholarship Scam
Corruption Is Public Interest	For instance, the Allahabad High Court, in Amitabh Thakur v. U.P. State Information Commission, held that corruption allegations cannot be excluded from the RTI Act’s scope, since the Act aims partly to contain corruption	Consequently, a scam involving public funds is, by definition, a ‘public activity,’ so disclosing its investigative status serves a clear ‘larger public interest’
The Proviso Test	Additionally, under the proviso to Section 8(1)(j), authorities cannot deny to any person information they wouldn’t deny to Parliament or a State Legislature	Thus, it’s highly unlikely that a two-year-old, high-profile corruption case’s status would be withheld from the U.P. State Legislature — which strongly supports disclosure
Status vs. Evidence	Instead, the appellant seeks only the current status, actions taken, and expected timeline — not confidential material like witness statements or internal strategy	Because this information relates to the police’s working and their duty of accountability, it therefore doesn’t touch a third party’s privacy

🎯 The Key Prayer in This Second Appeal in the Scholarship Scam

Based on these precedents, then, the appellant’s strongest path forward asks the Commission to direct the PIO to provide:

1. A Status Report: Namely, the specific steps taken, the investigation’s current stage, and a definitive, time-bound commitment for its conclusion.
2. Imposition of Penalty (Section 20): Furthermore, given the two-year delay and the seemingly unjustified denial under an incorrect exemption, the appellant has rightly sought action against the PIO under Section 20.

---

Overall, the Uttar Pradesh Information Commission should recognize a key risk here. Specifically, if it upholds this denial, it would effectively let any public authority stall transparency indefinitely — simply by keeping a file technically open.

The PIO’s Reason for Denial in This Second Appeal (Translated and Analyzed)

Based on the Hindi text of the PIO’s post-First-Appeal reply, the police did not, in fact, explain how disclosure would harm the investigation. Instead, they issued a blanket refusal under the exemption. Below, then, is a breakdown of that response, as 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	Clearly, this is a misapplication. After all, a two-year-old corruption scam involving public funds is, by definition, a matter of high public interest. Yet the PIO never explained how a status update — steps taken, time to complete, recovered money — counts as ‘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)	Essentially, this response merely asserts the denial rather than justifying it. Indeed, the PIO never provided the specific, reasoned grounds that judicial precedent (such as Bhagat Singh v. CIC) requires — namely, grounds explaining why disclosure would cause “unwarranted invasion of privacy” or fail the “larger public interest” test

Why This Second Appeal in the Scholarship Scam Rests on Strong Ground

Because the PIO never gave specific reasons, therefore, the Police Commissionerate faces a major weakness in this second appeal in the scholarship scam — and, in turn, the appellant gains the strongest ground for success.

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

Fundamentally, this refusal violates a core legal principle: namely, that the Public Authority carries the onus of proving that a denial is justified under the Act.

• For example, the PIO simply stated, “it is a criminal investigation, and it is not public interest.”
• Crucially, however, the PIO failed to demonstrate two necessary criteria:
  • First, any explanation of the harm to the investigation (relevant under 8(1)(h))
  • Second, any explanation of whose privacy is invaded, or why public interest is absent (relevant under 8(1)(j))

2. The Vitiating Factor for the Denial

Consequently, the Information Commission will likely view this denial as arbitrary, for two reasons:

• First, the PIO applied a provision — 8(1)(j), covering personal information and privacy — that is clearly inappropriate for a public corruption scam’s status report.
• Second, even if the Commission instead treats the denial as one made under Section 8(1)(h), the PIO still failed to provide the mandatory, reasoned finding that disclosure would actually hamper the probe — especially after a two-year delay.

In short, then, the appellant should emphasize at the hearing that the PIO’s response amounts to a non-speaking order — that is, one that lacks reasoned justification and is therefore void. Ultimately, this failure necessitates the Section 20 penalty, and it further strengthens the case behind this second appeal in the scholarship scam.

Download the full appeal (PDF)

Related reading: ACP Manoj Kumar Singh: Service Details Revealed