This situation highlights a significant gap between federal policy and local administrative accountability. When a Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) advisory regarding the compulsory registration of FIRs (First Information Reports) is issued, it is intended to protect the constitutional rights of every citizen.

However, as seen in the case of the S.P. Office Mirzapur, the RTI process is often used to provide administrative filler rather than substantive answers regarding policy compliance.

---

The Accountability Gap: When MHA Advisories Vanish in Local Police Records

1. The Core Issue: Non-Compliance with MHA Advisories

On October 12, 2015, the Ministry of Home Affairs issued a critical advisory emphasizing “no discrimination in compulsory registration of FIRs” under Section 154 of the CrPC. This was a directive to ensure that police stations cannot arbitrarily refuse to file a case. Despite the gravity of this directive, the information seeker in Mirzapur found that the local police hierarchy could not—or would not—confirm if this advisory ever reached the ground level.

2. The “Diversionary” RTI Response

When the Public Information Officer (PIO) was asked for specific details regarding the receipt and dissemination of this advisory, the response avoided the subject entirely. Instead of providing names of officials who processed the 2015 advisory or listing the police stations that received it, the PIO provided:

• A timeline of Nodal Officers’ postings from 2017 to 2023.
• Technical explanations about whose name was displayed on the online portal.
• Data regarding officer transfers.

This is a classic example of administrative obfuscation—providing a large volume of data that is factually correct but contextually irrelevant to the specific questions asked.

3. Analysis of the Five-Point Inquiry

The information seeker’s request was precise, targeting the “Right to Reason” and the chain of command:

• Chain of Custody: Who received the document from the State Government?
• Processing: Which personnel in the Mirzapur S.P. office handled the file?
• Dissemination: Was it sent to local police stations and outposts?
• Justification: If no action was taken, what is the administrative reason?

By failing to answer these points, the department reinforces the perception of “Jungle Raj”—a system where rules exist on paper but disappear in practice due to a lack of internal accountability.

4. Legal Implications: Right to Reason

As noted in the RTI application, the Supreme Court of India has repeatedly held that the “Right to Reason” is an indispensable part of a sound administrative system. A public authority cannot simply ignore a federal advisory; they are legally bound to explain the status of its implementation. Providing “posting details” in response to “policy compliance” questions is a violation of the spirit of the RTI Act 2005.

5. Conclusion: The Need for Transparency

The refusal to provide a straight answer regarding the 2015 MHA advisory suggests a breakdown in communication between the Ministry, the State Home Department, and the District Police. If the police cannot track a major policy advisory regarding the fundamental right to file an FIR, it raises serious questions about how other judicial and governmental mandates are being handled at the district level.

Based on the documents provided and established legal precedents, the situation you have described suggests a systemic failure in administrative accountability and a potential violation of judicial mandates.

1. Violation of Supreme Court Mandates (Lalita Kumari Case)

The Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) advisory dated October 12, 2015, which you cited, was issued specifically to ensure compliance with the Constitution Bench judgment in Lalita Kumari v. Govt. of U.P. (2014).

• Mandatory Registration: The Supreme Court held that registration of an FIR is mandatory under Section 154 of the CrPC if the information discloses a cognizable offence.
• No Discretion: Police officers have no discretion or option to conduct a “preliminary inquiry” before registering an FIR in such cases.
• Action Against Erring Officers: The Court specifically directed that disciplinary action must be taken against officers who fail to register an FIR when a cognizable offence is disclosed.

The police’s claim that they “did not receive” a national advisory that was sent to all State Chief Secretaries is a common administrative defense but does not absolve them of their statutory duty under the law of the land (CrPC/BNSS) and the specific orders of the Supreme Court.

2. Potential “Planned Conspiracy” and Deprivation of Justice

The systematic denial of information and the claim of “missing” or “not received” records can be viewed as an attempt to block accountability:

• Administrative Obfuscation: Providing names of Nodal Officers and posting details instead of answering whether a specific legal directive was implemented is a form of evasive reply.
• Missing Records: Legal precedents state that a “missing file” or “non-receipt” is not a valid excuse under the RTI Act. If a document like an MHA advisory (which is public record) is “missing,” it is the duty of the PIO to reconstruct the file or explain its absence via an affidavit.
• Section 166A of the IPC: Failure to record information as required by law (such as registration of FIRs for specific offences) is a criminal offence for public servants, punishable by up to two years of imprisonment.

3. Legal Transition: CrPC to BNSS

The PIO’s response mentions that Section 154 of the CrPC is no longer applicable as of July 1, 2024, due to the enforcement of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).

• Mandate Continues: While the law has changed, Section 173 of the BNSS mirrors the mandatory nature of FIR registration found in Section 154 of the CrPC.
• The Advisory’s Relevance: The 2015 advisory remains a guiding document for the intent of the law—to prevent discrimination and ensure “Zero FIR” registration.

Summary of the Conflict

Issue	Police/PIO Position	Legal Reality
Receipt of Advisory	Claimed “not received” in 2015 register.	MHA advisories are sent to Chief Secretaries for statewide dissemination.
Accountability	Provided details of who was the PIO in 2017-2023.	RTI requires specific answers on the subject of the query, not just staff names.
FIR Duty	Claimed CrPC is no longer in force.	BNSS Section 173(1) maintains mandatory registration for cognizable crimes.

The refusal to acknowledge a decade-old advisory, combined with a failure to provide the “reason for no action,” directly contradicts the Right to Reason principle upheld by the Apex Court.

Based on the documents provided and official records for the District Mirzapur Police, the following are the key identification details and contact information for the officials involved in your RTI and appeal process.

RTI Application & Appeal Identifiers

• Original RTI Application No: SPMZR/R/2024/60234 (Filed on 23/12/2024)
• First Appeal Registration No: SPMZR/A/2025/60017 (Filed on 04/02/2025)
• Second Appeal No (SIC): S09/A/1015/2025 and S09/A/1630/2025
• Transaction ID: SPMZRR20240000000286

Public Information Officers (PIO) – Mirzapur

The officials responsible for processing your request in the office of the Superintendent of Police, Mirzapur:

Name	Designation	Mobile Number	Email Address
Om Prakash Singh	Additional SP (Operations) / PIO	9454401594 / 9125608556	addlspopmzr@gmail.com
Manish Kumar Mishra	Additional SP (Operations)	9454401105	asp-op.mi@up.gov.in

First Appellate Authority (FAA)

The senior officer responsible for hearing appeals against the PIO’s decisions:

• Name: Shri Abhinandan / Somen Barma
• Designation: Superintendent of Police (SP), Mirzapur
• Mobile Number: 9454400299
• Email Address: spmzr-up@nic.in

Online Web Portals

To track status or file further submissions, you can use these official links:

• UP RTI Online Portal: rtionline.up.gov.in
• UP Information Commission (SIC): upsic.up.gov.in
• Status Tracking: rtionline.up.gov.in/request/status.php

To complete the list of stakeholders, here are the identification details for the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) and the relevant Supreme Court references involved in this case:

Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) – Govt. of India

The advisory in question (dated October 12, 2015) was issued by the CS Division of the MHA.

• Issuing Authority: Kumal, Joint Secretary to the Govt. of India.
• Subject: Advisory on no discrimination in compulsory registration of FIRs.
• Official Website: mha.gov.in
• RTI Portal: rtionline.gov.in
• General Helpline: 011-23092011 / 23092161

Supreme Court of India (Judicial Mandates)

The MHA advisory was a direct result of the following landmark judgment which mandates police action:

• Case Title: Lalita Kumari vs. Govt. of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. (2014).
• Key Mandate: Mandatory registration of FIR under Section 154 CrPC (now Section 173 BNSS) if the complaint discloses a cognizable offense.
• Official Website: sci.gov.in

Consolidated Contact Reference for Appeals

When filing your final submission to the State Information Commission, you can use these verified contact points to establish the chain of command:

Level	Authority	Key Contact/Email
Federal	Ministry of Home Affairs	mha.gov.in / Kumal (Joint Secretary)
State	Chief Secretary, UP	up.gov.in
District (PIO)	Om Prakash Singh (Addl. SP Ops)	9125608556 / addlspopmzr@gmail.com
District (FAA)	Shri Abhinandan (SP Mirzapur)	9454400299 / spmzr-up@nic.in

Timeline of Documents in Your Possession

• MHA Advisory: 12th October 2015.
• Police Reply (Denial): August 12, 2025 (Claimed “not received”).
• SIC Final Order: 13.08.2025 (Order by Shakuntala Gautam, State Information Commissioner).

The fact that the PIO claims the 2015 advisory was “not received” while the MHA records show it was sent to “All State Governments/UT Administrations” is the primary evidence of administrative negligence or a “conspiracy” to block justice.