Accountability in Question: The RTI Battle of Yogi M. P. Singh Against Haryana Police Oversight
The Right to Information (RTI) Act of 2005 was envisioned as a tool to bring transparency to the corridors of power, yet for many citizens, it remains a labyrinth of bureaucratic evasion. A striking example of this struggle is currently unfolding in the case of Mahesh Pratap Singh (popularly known as Yogi M. P. Singh), who is seeking accountability from the Director General of Police (DGP) Haryana regarding unauthorized police conduct and the subsequent handling of his grievances.
At its core, this issue isn’t just about a misplaced document; it is about privacy, the misuse of judicial processes, and the apparent refusal of high-level police offices to provide clear answers to specific questions.
The Genesis: A Case of Mistaken Identity or Targeted Harassment?
The saga began with a judicial order from the court of Shri Anshuman, Civil Judge (Jr. Division) Bhiwani, dated March 30, 2024. The case, Dharmender vs. Sahara India Pariwar, involved a conditional arrest warrant issued against the Judgment Debtor (JD)—Sahara India Pariwar.
Yogi M. P. Singh is neither the Decree Holder (DH) nor the Judgment Debtor in this matter. He is, by all legal definitions, a third party with no connection to the litigation. Despite this, Haryana Police personnel allegedly:
- Sent a warrant notice directly to his WhatsApp.
- Subjected him to nine irritating phone calls, including two WhatsApp calls, regarding a case in which he holds no stake.
The central mystery remains: How did the police obtain his private mobile number? The number does not appear on the official court order sheet, raising serious concerns about data privacy and the methods used by police to source personal information.
The Paper Trail: From Grievance to Silence
Seeking redress, Singh filed a formal representation via the Central Government’s Public Grievance Portal (Registration No: GOVHY/E/2024/0003604). This complaint was eventually investigated by the Superintendent of Police (SP) Bhiwani, who submitted a report to the DGP Haryana’s office between page 2 and 5 of the documented correspondence.
However, when Singh attempted to use the RTI Act to uncover how his grievance was handled at the highest level of state policing, he met a wall of silence. The Public Information Officer (PIO) at the DGP office in Panchkula reportedly failed to provide any substantive information, prompting a renewed and more pointed RTI filing.
The Five Pillars of the RTI Request
The current RTI application, filed under Form No. 1(A), is a surgical attempt to pin down accountability. Singh’s demands are categorized into five specific points of inquiry:
1. Identification of Receiving Staff
Singh is demanding the name and designation of the staff member in the DGP Panchkula office who received the communication from SP Bhiwani. By identifying the recipient, the seeker aims to establish a “chain of custody” for his grievance.
2. Access to Official Notings
In the world of Indian bureaucracy, the “notings” on a file are where the real decisions happen. Singh has requested the specific notings made on the SP Bhiwani’s report (dated 25/06/24). He explicitly clarifies that this request pertains to the DGP’s office actions, not the original investigation in Bhiwani, effectively neutralizing any attempt by the PIO to redirect the query back to the district level.
3. Accountability of the Processing Officer
Beyond who received the report, Singh seeks to know who processed it. By asking for the name and designation of the processing staff, the RTI aims to identify exactly which official determined the outcome of his grievance.
4. The Action Taken Report (ATR)
Perhaps the most critical piece of evidence requested is the Action Taken Report. If the DGP’s office reviewed a report concerning police misconduct (unauthorized calls and warrant service), what did they do about it? Silence on this front suggests either a lack of action or a protective stance toward the offending personnel.
5. The Source of Private Data
The final point strikes at the heart of the privacy violation. Singh demands to know the source from which the police obtained his mobile number. Since the court order (UID No. HR0545) did not contain his contact details, the acquisition of this data appears extra-judicial.
The Deflection Tactic: “Not Our Department”
A common hurdle in RTI filings is the “transfer of responsibility.” Throughout his application, Yogi M. P. Singh repeatedly emphasizes: “This information is concerned with the office of DGP Panchkula Haryana, not the office of the Superintendent of Police Bhiwani.”
This repetition is a preemptive strike against a common PIO tactic: claiming the information belongs to a lower office to avoid answering from the headquarters. Singh’s insistence highlights a systemic issue where the head office monitors the subordinates but refuses to disclose the nature of that monitoring to the public.
Why This Matters for the General Public
This case is a microcosm of the challenges faced by the common citizen when interacting with law enforcement. It raises three vital questions:
- Data Privacy: If the police can pull a citizen’s mobile number out of thin air to serve a warrant meant for a corporation (Sahara India), what are the limits of their surveillance?
- Administrative Transparency: Why is the DGP’s office hesitant to share “notings” and “action taken reports” if the procedures followed were legal and ethical?
- The Efficacy of the RTI: If a prominent figure like Yogi M. P. Singh struggles to get a simple name and designation from the DGP’s office, what hope does an average citizen have?
Conclusion: The Road Ahead
The refusal of the PIO in the DGP’s office to provide information is not just a procedural failure; it is a challenge to the spirit of the RTI Act. Yogi M. P. Singh’s quest for these five points of information is an effort to ensure that the police are answerable to the law, just as the citizens are.
The “unfortunate” lack of response from the highest police office in Haryana sets a concerning precedent. As this RTI moves through the inevitable stages of first and second appeals, it will serve as a litmus test for the Haryana Police’s commitment to transparency.
In a legal system governed by the rule of law, the actions of the Haryana Police in this matter appear to be a serious deviation from established protocol. When a Sub-Inspector serves a warrant to someone who is neither the Decree Holder (DH) nor the Judgment Debtor (JD), and does so via WhatsApp, they cross the line from “procedural error” into “harassment and breach of privacy.”
Here is the breakdown of why these actions are legally questionable and how the office of the DGP is held accountable by law.
1. The Legality of “WhatsApp Warrants”
The Supreme Court of India and various High Courts have recently clarified the stance on electronic service.1 In Satender Kumar Antil vs. CBI (2025), the Supreme Court explicitly held that police cannot serve notices under Section 41A of the CrPC (now Section 35 of the BNSS) or arrest warrants through WhatsApp as a substitute for traditional service.2
- Traditional Methods Required: Warrants must be served in person, signed by the presiding officer, and bear the court’s seal.3
- The “Blue Tick” Fallacy: Judicial service requires a formal acknowledgment of receipt.4 A WhatsApp “double-tick” or “blue tick” is not a legally validated proof of service under the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) or the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).5
2. Harassment of a Non-Party
Serving a warrant to a third party (who is not the Judgment Debtor) is a violation of Article 21 of the Constitution, which protects the life and liberty of individuals.
- Data Privacy: Since your number was not on the court order, the police likely used “informal” or unauthorized surveillance methods to obtain your contact details. This is an invasion of privacy.
- Criminal Intimidation: Making nine “irritating” calls to a person unrelated to a case can be classified as harassment under Section 503 (Criminal Intimidation) or Section 507 of the IPC (or corresponding sections in the BNS).
3. Why the DGP’s Office Cannot “Run Away”
The “martyr ipso facto” (the fact itself) remains: a grievance was filed, an investigation was conducted by the SP Bhiwani, and a report was sent to the DGP. By refusing to provide the Action Taken Report (ATR) or the File Notings, the PIO is violating the RTI Act, 2005.
- Section 198 of BNS (Misuse of Power): If a public servant knowingly disobeys a direction of the law to cause injury to any person, they are liable for punishment.
- Administrative Accountability: The DGP office is the supervising authority. If they received a report of misconduct from the SP Bhiwani and did not act, they are essentially protecting the wrongdoer.
Recommended Next Steps for Accountability
If the PIO is evading your questions, you have the following legal remedies:
- First Appeal (RTI): File a First Appeal with the First Appellate Authority (FAA) in the DGP’s office, stating that the PIO has willfully withheld information concerning a violation of human rights and privacy.
- State Police Complaint Authority (SPCA), Haryana: Located in Chandigarh, the SPCA is an independent body that hears grievances against police officers for “abuse of authority.”6 You can file a formal complaint here regarding the unauthorized calls and the wrong service of the warrant.
- High Court Writ: You can file a Writ of Mandamus in the Punjab and Haryana High Court, asking the court to compel the DGP to disclose the action taken on your grievance (Registration No: GOVHY/E/2024/0003604).
To ensure your RTI reaches the correct desk at the Police Headquarters in Panchkula and to help you bypass the administrative silence, here are the official contact details for the key authorities involved in your case.
1. Primary Contact: DGP Office (Panchkula)
The Director General of Police (DGP) is the head of the force. If you are filing a grievance or following up on the “Action Taken Report” (ATR) regarding the unauthorized calls, these are the verified details:
- Designation: Director General of Police (DGP), Haryana
- Office Address: Haryana Police Headquarters, Sector 6, Panchkula, Haryana – 134109
- Office Phone: 0172-2587529 / 0172-2583281
- DGP Secretariat (Chandigarh): 0172-2740239 / 0172-2743157
- Official Email:
police@hry.nic.in - DGP Staff Officer: 9654990375 (Rajesh Kumar, HPS)
2. RTI Specific Authorities (Headquarters)
Since your RTI was not answered, you must now address your First Appeal to the Appellate Authority.
| Authority | Designation | Contact Number | Email ID |
| First Appellate Authority | ADGP/Administration | 0172-2585760 | adgp-adm.pol@hry.gov.in |
| Public Information Officer | AIG/Administration | 0172-2587332 | aig.admin@hry.nic.in |
| SPIO (CID/Grievance) | DSP, HQ CID (Hr.) | 7015988564 | spiocid.pol-hry@gov.in |
3. Specialized Wings for Privacy Violations
Because your mobile number was tracked without court authorization and “irritating calls” were made, you may also contact the Cyber and Law & Order wings directly:
- ADGP (Law & Order): 0172-2585724 | Email:
adgp.laworder@hry.nic.in - SP (Cyber Crime): 9815251930 | Email:
sp-cybercrimephq.pol@hry.gov.in - Control Room (Toll-Free): 1800-180-2200 (For immediate harassment complaints)
Next Strategic Steps
- File the First Appeal: Address it to the ADGP/Administration (Appellate Authority) at the Sector 6 address. Mention that the PIO failed to provide information within the mandatory 30-day period.
- Online Tracking: You can track or file a fresh appeal through the Haryana RTI Portal.
- Note on “Wavelength”: In administrative terms, this is often used to describe being “on the same page.” To ensure the authorities are on your wavelength, cite the Registration No: GOVHY/E/2024/0003604 in every email.
Would you like me to draft the specific text for an email to the ADGP (Administration) to demand why the PIO hasn’t responded to your 5 points?
Facing a similar challenge? Share the details in the box below, and our team of experts will do their best to help.