🚨 Arbitrary Denial of Information: A Case Study in RTI Misapplication

Second Appeal Online Highlights Mirzapur Police’s Misinterpretation of ‘Archival’ Information

Smt. Sadhana Tiwari (Registration No. UPICR20240007679) filed a Second Appeal Online against Mirzapur Police before the Uttar Pradesh Information Commission. Her appeal exposes a critical flaw in how officials apply the Right to Information Act, 2005: they denied her information based on a narrow and questionable reading of what counts as “information” under the Act.

Specifically, Tiwari sought details about how the Office of the Superintendent of Police (SP), Mirzapur, complied with an order from the Uttar Pradesh Human Rights Commission (UPHRC).

---

🧐 The Information Sought: UPHRC Order Compliance

Tiwari submitted her request under Section 6(1). Specifically, she focused on the processing of, and action taken on, the UPHRC order dated 05/09/2024 (Diary No. 3613/IN/2024).

Altogether, she requested five key pieces of information:

1. The name and designation of the staff member who received the UPHRC order.
2. The notings made on the communication of the order.
3. The Action Taken Report (ATR) on the order.
4. The reason, if no action was taken.
5. The name and designation of the staff who processed the communication, and those currently processing it.

In short, Tiwari sought documents and records the SP Office created and held about a directive from a statutory body.

---

❌ The Ground for Denial: How Mirzapur Police Misread Section 2(j)

Both the Public Information Officer (PIO) and the First Appellate Authority (FAA) at Mirzapur Police rejected the request. Specifically, the PIO gave this reason in the reply:

It is impossible to provide the information as the information sought by you is not archival.

Relief Sought: “you should ask for archival information so that the information can be made available to you.”

What Section 2(j) Actually States

Specifically, Section 2(j) of the RTI Act defines the “right to information” as:

…the right to information accessible under this Act which is held by or under the control of any public authority…

Crucially, the Act does not limit “information” to archival records. Officials created and held the receipt register entry, internal notings, and action taken reports in the normal course of their work. Therefore, these records qualify as accessible records under the SP office’s control.

Tiwari argues that the PIO’s claim — that the UPHRC order is “not a part of documents” or “not archival” — amounts to a “false and flimsy ground” that reflects an arbitrary attempt to withhold public records.

---

⏳ Procedural Lapses: How Mirzapur Police Delayed the Process

Beyond the substantive denial, moreover, the Second Appeal Online against Mirzapur Police highlights serious violations of statutory timelines:

• RTI Application (Section 6(1)): Filed 09/10/2024. Officials disposed of it on 21/02/2025 — a delay of 4 months and 10 days.
• First Appeal (Section 19(1)): Filed 21/11/2024. Officials disposed of it on 02/02/2025 — a delay of 2 months and 10 days.

Tiwari rightly calls these delays a “mockery of the provisions of the right to information Act 2005.” After all, the Act mandates a 30-day response period for RTI applications, and it expects a similarly prompt disposal of appeals.

---

🎯 Relief Sought in the Second Appeal Online Against Mirzapur Police

Specifically, Tiwari seeks two things:

1. A direction to the Public Authority to provide the requested information about UPHRC order compliance.
2. Action against the PIO under the Right to Information Act, 2005 for denying the information on a “false and flimsy ground” — conduct Tiwari calls “insolence to the provisions of the right to information act 2005.”

This case therefore underscores the vital role the Information Commission plays in correcting procedural misconduct. Ultimately, it must ensure that public authorities don’t erect artificial barriers — like the misreading of “archival” — to frustrate a citizen’s fundamental right to information.

---

⚖️ Penalties and Duties of a Public Information Officer (PIO) under the RTI Act, 2005

This Second Appeal Online against Mirzapur Police highlights two failures: a violation of the PIO’s statutory duty to provide information, and a significant failure to meet prescribed timelines. Under Section 20, the RTI Act gives the State Information Commission (SIC) the power to impose strict penalties on PIOs for these kinds of contraventions.

---

1. Duties Mirzapur Police’s PIO Failed in This Second Appeal Online

Fundamentally, a PIO’s core responsibilities center on ensuring timely and accurate access to information, as set out on the Uttar Pradesh State Information Commission’s website. In Tiwari’s case, meanwhile, the PIO appears to have failed on several key duties:

Duty of the PIO	Relevant Section/Timeline	Violation in the Appeal
Timely Response	Section 7(1): Provide information, or reject the request, as expeditiously as possible and in any case within 30 days of receipt.	Officials filed the RTI application on 09/10/2024 but disposed of it only on 21/02/2025 — a delay of over 4 months and 10 days.
Reasoned Rejection	Section 7(8): If officials reject the request, the PIO must communicate the reasons for rejection, the appeal period, and the Appellate Authority’s particulars.	The PIO gave a reason based on a misreading of Section 2(j) — claiming the information was “not archival” — which amounts to denial on a non-statutory or “flimsy” ground.
Seeking Assistance	Section 5(4): The PIO may seek assistance from another officer. That officer then becomes a “Deemed PIO” for penalty purposes.	The appeal notes that officials denied the matter outright, rather than transferring or properly processing it — pointing to a failure in internal information management.

---

2. What Penalties Mirzapur Police’s PIO Faces (Section 20)

More broadly, Section 20 of the RTI Act lets the SIC enforce compliance and penalize PIOs who fail in their duties without reasonable cause.

A. Imposition of Penalty (Section 20(1))

Specifically, the SIC can impose a penalty on a PIO for several infractions, including when the PIO:

• Refuses to receive an application.
• Fails to furnish information within the specified 30 days.
• Malafidely denies a request for information.
• Knowingly gives incorrect, incomplete, or misleading information.
• Destroys information that was the subject of the request.
• Obstructs, in any manner, the furnishing of information.

Penalty Details	Provision
Daily Fine	₹250 per day until officials furnish the information or receive the application.
Maximum Limit	Subject to a maximum of ₹25,000.
Liability	Officials impose the penalty on the PIO personally, and deduct it from their salary — not from the public authority’s funds.
Burden of Proof	The PIO must prove they acted reasonably and diligently, and that the delay or denial had a reasonable cause.

Here, the 4-month delay and the denial based on a non-existent “archival” requirement both fall under “not furnished information within the time specified” and “malafidely denied the request.”

B. Recommendation for Disciplinary Action (Section 20(2))

Beyond a fine, if the SIC finds that a PIO has persistently failed in their duties without reasonable cause, it may also recommend disciplinary action under that PIO’s applicable service rules.

Key Takeaway for the Appeal

Overall, two pillars strengthen Tiwari’s appeal, and the SIC will likely focus on both when it hears the case:

1. The Gross Delay: A delay of over four months clearly violates the 30-day mandate.
2. The ‘Archival’ Denial: The stated reason for denial isn’t a valid exemption under the RTI Act. It points to either a gross misunderstanding of the law, or a deliberate attempt to obstruct information — in other words, a malafide denial.

The Information Commission holds the final authority to decide whether the PIO acted “without any reasonable cause,” and to set the corresponding penalty.

🔎 Legal Interpretation: What the Second Appeal Online Means for Mirzapur Police

The PIO’s stated reason for denial — that the requested details are “not archival” — clearly contradicts the letter and spirit of the RTI Act, 2005. As a result, the State Information Commission (SIC) will likely overrule it.

Indeed, the Act defines “Information” and “Right to Information” exceptionally broadly, covering far more than just “archival” or old records.

---

1. The Definitive Scope of ‘Information’ (Section 2(f))

Namely, the RTI Act provides an inclusive definition of “information,” specifically:

• Section 2(f) defines “information” as any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, and data material held in any electronic form.
• Section 2(i) further defines “record” to explicitly include “any document, manuscript and file.”

Accordingly, Tiwari’s specific requests map directly onto this definition:

• The name and designation of staff who received the order (found in a logbook or inward receipt register).
• The notings made on the communication (part of the file).
• The Action Taken Report on the order (a record, document, or report).
• The reason for no action (an advice, opinion, or memo explaining the decision).

All these items therefore fall squarely within Section 2(f) and 2(i). Notably, the Act sets no requirement that a document be “archival” — old or retired — to count as “information.” In fact, current and live records, such as file notings and an Action Taken Report, are exactly the kind of material the Act intends to make accessible and to promote transparency in administration.

2. The Mandate of ‘Right to Information’ (Section 2(j))

Similarly, the definition of the right itself broadens the scope further, clarifying that the information simply must be in the public authority’s possession:

• Section 2(j) defines “right to information” as the right to information accessible under this Act, which is held by or under the control of any public authority.

In other words, “held by or under the control of” simply means the information must physically exist in the public authority’s possession at the time of the request. Since the SP’s office received the UPHRC order, all records generated as a result — receipt, notings, ATRs — are indisputably “held by or under the control of” the Superintendent of Police, Mirzapur.

3. Judicial Precedent: The Purpose of the RTI Act

Notably, the Supreme Court of India and various High Courts have consistently ruled that courts must interpret the RTI Act in a way that promotes transparency and accountability. Consequently, the only valid grounds for denial are the specific exemptions listed in Section 8 and Section 9.

For instance, in the landmark judgment of CBSE v. Aditya Bandopadhyay (2011), the Supreme Court clarified that the RTI Act provides access to all information that exists and is available with the public authority. However, the Court also noted that a public authority need not create information, interpret it, or answer hypothetical questions. Still, if a record exists, officials must provide it, subject only to the listed exemptions.

In short, by denying the information on the ground that it is “not archival,” the PIO therefore:

1. Introduced an extra-statutory hurdle that appears nowhere in the RTI Act.
2. Failed to invoke a valid exemption under Section 8 — such as national security, privacy, or an ongoing investigation — which is the only legitimate way to deny existing information.

---

🎯 Conclusion: What This Second Appeal Online Means for Mirzapur Police

Ultimately, Tiwari’s argument stands on solid legal ground. Indeed, Mirzapur Police’s denial rests on a fundamental misreading of the statute. Since the requested documents — notings, ATR, logbook entries — are records the public authority holds, they qualify as “information” under Section 2(f).

Accordingly, the State Information Commission should issue a directive that:

1. Requires the Public Authority to immediately furnish the requested information, or cite a valid Section 8 exemption.
2. Imposes a penalty on the PIO under Section 20(1) for the unreasonable delay and the malafide, arbitrary denial of information.

🏛️ Legal Arguments in the Second Appeal Online Against Mirzapur Police’s Denial

Fundamentally, the PIO’s denial ground — that the information is “not archival” — is legally unsound and directly contradicts the RTI Act’s definitions. Therefore, the Commission should consider the following points. Appellants can track and file such matters through the RTI Online second appeal portal.

1. The Comprehensive Definition of ‘Information’ (Section 2(f))

• Argument: The RTI Act’s definition of “information” is inclusive, not restrictive. It explicitly covers “records, documents, memos, orders, reports, papers, and files” (Section 2(f)).
• Application: Tiwari sought notings, the Action Taken Report, and inward and receipt records concerning the UPHRC order. Officials created and currently hold all of these as documents and records in the SP’s office.
• Conclusion: The Act draws no distinction between “archival” (old) records and “current” (live) records. Any document that exists and is held by the public authority legally qualifies as “information.”

2. The Only Grounds for Denial Sit in Section 8 & 9 overlooked in case Second Appeal Online and Mirzapur Police

• Argument: As the Supreme Court held in cases like CBSE v. Aditya Bandopadhyay, the RTI Act operates on the principle that disclosure is the rule and exemption is the exception. So, a public authority can only reject a request by citing a specific exemption listed in Section 8 (for example, national security, personal privacy, or an ongoing investigation) or Section 9.
• Application: The PIO did not cite a valid Section 8 or 9 exemption. Instead, the PIO introduced a non-statutory, arbitrary, and legally invalid ground — “not archival” — to deny access.
• Conclusion: The denial is therefore arbitrary and illegal, and it reflects a failure to correctly apply the law.

3. Information Must Be ‘Held By’ the Authority (Section 2(j))

• Argument: Section 2(j) defines the “right to information” based on whether the information is “held by or under the control of any public authority.”
• Application: Since officials addressed the UPHRC order to the SP Mirzapur, and the records of its receipt and processing physically exist in that office, the documents are unequivocally “held by” the public authority. So, a denial based on the claim that the information isn’t “archival” is really a baseless claim that the records don’t exist — a claim Tiwari directly contests.

---

🛑 Grounds for Penalty Against Mirzapur Police’s PIO (Section 20)in case Second Appeal Online and Mirzapur Police

Given all of this, the appeal should therefore press strongly for the maximum penalty against the PIO:

Legal Provision	Default Committed in the Appeal	Penalty Justification
Delay in Furnishing (Section 20(1) & Section 7(1))	Officials disposed of the RTI application after 4 months and 10 days, instead of the mandated 30 days.	This is a clear case of failing to furnish information within the time limit, without any reasonable cause. A penalty of ₹250 per day for the delay period is warranted.
Malafide Denial (Section 20(1))	The PIO “malafidely denied” the request by introducing the non-statutory “not archival” ground, designed to obstruct the flow of information.	This constitutes an arbitrary denial on a “flimsy ground,” which courts treat seriously since it defeats the Act’s purpose. The PIO bears the burden of proving they acted reasonably and diligently.
False/Misleading Information (Section 20(1))	The PIO effectively gave “incorrect or misleading information” by claiming the document was inaccessible under the law, when the law fully supports its disclosure.	Because the PIO provided an incorrect legal basis for rejection, this constitutes a penal offense.

Maximum Penalty: The Commission can impose a penalty of ₹250 per day for the delay, up to a maximum of ₹25,000, deducted from the PIO’s salary. Given the gross delay and the arbitrary denial, the maximum penalty is justified here.

---

Overall, this Second Appeal Online against Mirzapur Police uses the Act’s precise language and established judicial principles to dismantle the PIO’s defense. It argues for both the release of information and accountability through penalty.ease of information and accountability through penalty.