⚖️ A Citizen’s Struggle for Information: Analyzing the Second Appeal under RTI Act, 2005

The Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005, is a cornerstone of Indian democracy, empowering citizens to hold public authorities accountable. When this process faces bureaucratic stonewalling or misleading responses, the recourse is often a Second Appeal to the State Information Commission. This post analyzes a recent Second Appeal filed by Mahima Maurya, highlighting the issues raised and the apparent deficiencies in the information provided by the public authority.

---

📅 Case Overview and Timeline

The appellant, Mahima Maurya from Mirzapur, Uttar Pradesh, initiated her quest for specific police records related to a complaint she made.

• RTI Application Date (Section 6(1)): November 6, 2024
  • Registration No.: SPMZR/R/2024/60200
• PIO Reply Date: December 5, 2024 (Deemed Incomplete/Unsatisfactory)
• First Appeal Date (Section 19(1)): December 18, 2024
  • Registration No.: SPMZR/A/2024/60047
• FAA Order Date: January 24, 2025 (Deemed Unsatisfactory/False/Misleading)
• Second Appeal Date (Section 19(3)): April 5, 2025

The core of the appeal lies in the appellant’s assertion that the Public Information Officer (PIO) provided “incomplete misleading information” and the First Appellate Authority (FAA) “justified it through arbitrary report of investigation officer,” constituting an “insolence to the provisions of RTI.

---

🔍 Analysis of Sought Information and Provided Replies

The appellant’s submissions clearly detail five specific requests and the corresponding, often evasive, replies. A comparative breakdown reveals the nature of the alleged deception:

Request 1: Copy of Complaint Registered based on Medical Report

• Sought Information: Copy of the complaint registered by Vindhyachal police based on her medical examination report.
• Provided Information: A generic statement: “Action is being taken as per rules following the orders/directions regarding the mention of the main victim’s name in the Non-Cognizable Report or First Information Report.” (गैर संज्ञेय रिपोर्ट या प्रथम सूचना रिपोर्ट में मुख्य पीड़िता का नाम के उल्लेख करने के सम्बन्ध में दिये गये आदेशो निर्देशो का पालन कर नियमानुसार कार्यवाही की जा रही है।)
• Appellant’s Submission: The PIO failed to provide the copy requested, offering a non-responsive, misleading administrative statement instead.

Request 2: Copy of the Information Seeker’s (Victim’s) Witness Testimony

• Sought Information: Copy of the witness testimony of Mahima Maurya as the main victim.
• Provided Information: The PIO cited an NCR (Non-Cognizable Report) No. 104/24 registered on September 14, 2024, under sections of the BNS (likely referring to the newly implemented Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita) based on the complaint of her husband, Pramod Kumar Kushwaha.
• Appellant’s Submission: The police did not provide the victim’s (Mahima Maurya’s) testimony, instead referring to an NCR registered on her husband’s complaint. This suggests the police may not have recorded her statement as the primary victim, a crucial piece of information they were asked to provide.

Request 3: Copy of Any Police Complaint Registered with Information Seeker’s Name

• Sought Information: Copy of any complaint registered by the police where the information seeker’s name is mentioned in the police record.
• Provided Information: “No” (नही).
• Appellant’s Submission: The PIO stated “No” but failed to provide the reason for not providing the copy, which is a requirement under Section 4(1)(d) of the RTI Act, 2005 (the obligation to provide reasons for administrative or quasi-judicial decisions to affected persons).

Request 4: Copy of Police Findings Report Based on Applicant’s Complaint

• Sought Information: Copy of the police findings report based on the applicant’s complaint to use in a court of law.
• Provided Information: Again, the PIO cited the NCR 104/24 registered on her husband’s complaint.
• Appellant’s Submission: The PIO appears to have conflated the applicant’s complaint with her husband’s complaint, failing to provide a report on her specific complaint and its findings. The core question remains: Is this report based on Mahima Maurya’s complaint?

Requests 5 & 6: Circle Officer City’s Report and Report to Chief Minister’s Office

• Sought Information 5: Copy of the report from the Circle Officer City’s office based on the applicant’s complaint.
• Sought Information 6: Copy of the report submitted to the Chief Minister’s Office based on the Circle Officer City’s investigation.
• Provided Information 5: No such report provided.
• Provided Information 6: PIO did not entertain this request.
• Appellant’s Submission: The PIO failed to address two direct requests for specific investigative reports, further demonstrating a lack of compliance.

---

🚨 The Role of the Information Commission

The appellant is seeking intervention under Section 19(3) of the RTI Act, alleging an “act… tantamount to anarchy in the working of the public authority,” which must be “curbed at the initial stages.”

The Uttar Pradesh Information Commission is now tasked with determining several key issues:

1. Completeness of Information: Did the PIO, Sri Omprakash Singh, fail in his duty to provide complete and specific information as sought, particularly the copy of the document requested in Point 1?
2. Accuracy and Evasion: Did the PIO deliberately provide misleading information by citing her husband’s NCR instead of addressing her complaint and testimony, thus evading the spirit of the RTI Act?
3. Compliance with Section 4(1)(d): Was the PIO’s reply of “No” to a registered complaint (Request 3) deficient for failing to provide the reasons for denial?
4. Role of the FAA: Did the FAA, Abhinandan Singh, fail to rectify the PIO’s shortcomings and improperly endorse a flawed investigative report, thereby rendering the First Appeal process ineffective?

If the Commission finds the PIO’s actions to be a deliberate attempt to obstruct information or misleading, it can impose a penalty of up to $Rs. 25,000$ under Section 20(1). Furthermore, it can recommend disciplinary action against the PIO under Section 20(2). The Commission has the power to order the police authority to provide the correct and complete information within a stipulated time frame.

This case serves as a powerful reminder of the ongoing challenge citizens face in securing transparency and accountability from public authorities, underscoring the vital, investigative role of the Information Commission in upholding the RTI Act.

---

Would you like me to find the full text of the NCR 104/24 sections cited (Section 115(2)/352 BNS) to better understand the nature of the complaint registered?

Welcome UPICR20250000353