The key takeaways from the analysis of this RTI case can be summarized as follows:

• Administrative Accountability: The core of the issue is the perceived failure of the Mirzapur Police to demonstrate concrete action on a directive issued by the Uttar Pradesh Human Rights Commission (UPHRC) over seven months ago.
• The “Right to Reason”: A major highlight is the applicant’s demand for the legal justification behind any inaction. This underscores the principle that public authorities are not just required to act, but are legally obligated to explain their reasoning (or lack of action) to the citizen.
• Persistent Follow-up: The transition from the 2024 RTI (which was “disposed of”) to the new 2025 filing suggests that the initial response from the PIO was likely evasive or incomplete, forcing the applicant to use the RTI Act as a tool for persistent oversight.
• Procedural Awareness: By explicitly calculating the 43-day and 150-day windows for appeals, the applicant is demonstrating a high level of “RTI literacy,” signaling to the ASP Operation (PIO) that they are prepared to escalate the matter to the State Information Commission if transparency is not met.
• Bureaucratic Transparency: The request seeks very specific internal data—including file notings and the names of the specific staff members processing the order—to prevent the grievance from being lost in the “gray area” of general office delays.

Would you like me to create a checklist of the specific documents or “Evidence of Action” you should look for in the PIO’s upcoming response?

This blog post provides a structured analysis of the RTI application filed by Sadhana Tiwari, focusing on the intersection of human rights, administrative accountability, and the Right to Information Act in Mirzapur, Uttar Pradesh.

---

Accountability in Action: Analyzing the RTI Quest for Human Rights Compliance in Mirzapur

The strength of a democracy is measured by the responsiveness of its institutions to the grievances of its citizens. When a constitutional body like the Uttar Pradesh Human Rights Commission (UPHRC) issues a directive, it is expected that the executive machinery will act with speed and transparency.

However, as seen in the recent RTI filings by Sadhana Tiwari against the Office of the Superintendent of Police (SP), Mirzapur, the path to obtaining a simple status update on a human rights directive can be fraught with bureaucratic hurdles.

1. The Genesis: The Human Rights Commission Directive

The core of this matter dates back to September 2024. Following a complaint filed by Sadhana Tiwari (Case No. 10035/24/55/2024), the UPHRC issued an order on September 5, 2024.

The Commission’s directive was clear: the Superintendent of Police, Mirzapur, was to look into the allegations and “do the needful in accordance with law,” while ensuring the complainant was kept informed. This order placed a direct responsibility on the Mirzapur Police administration to act as a bridge between the citizen’s grievance and legal redressal.

2. The Information Gap: Why the RTI was Filed

When the “needful action” promised by the Commission failed to materialize in a transparent manner, the applicant turned to the Right to Information Act, 2005.

The initial RTI (Registration No. SPMZR/R/2024/60190) sought five specific points of information to track the movement of the UPHRC order. This included:

• The identity of the staff who received the order.
• Internal file notings and the Action Taken Report (ATR).
• The “Right to Reason” for any inaction, citing Supreme Court precedents.
• The names of the officials currently processing the file.

Despite the request being “Disposed Of” in February 2025, the subsequent filing in April 2025 (SPMZR/R/2025/60085) suggests a persistent gap in the quality or completeness of the information provided by the Public Information Officer (PIO).

3. The Role of the PIO and Nodal Officers

In this case, the responsibility lies with Shri Om Prakash Singh (ASP Operation), designated as the PIO. The RTI highlights a critical administrative timeline:

• Filing Date: April 5, 2025.
• Target Authority: SP Office, Mirzapur.
• Current Status: “RTI Request Received.”

The involvement of a high-ranking officer like an Assistant Superintendent of Police (ASP) underlines the seriousness of the inquiry. However, the applicant’s detailed breakdown of appeal timelines (43 days for the first appeal and 150 days for the second) indicates a user who is well-prepared for a long-term legal battle for transparency.

4. The “Right to Reason”: A Judicial Necessity

One of the most compelling aspects of this case is the applicant’s invocation of the “Right to Reason.” The Indian judiciary has repeatedly held that administrative transparency requires authorities to explain why a certain decision was made (or why no action was taken).

In the context of the Mirzapur SP office, if a Human Rights Commission order is received and no action is taken, the office is legally and ethically bound to provide the underlying reasons. Silence in the face of a statutory directive is not just an administrative lapse; it is a violation of the principles of natural justice.

5. Procedural Timelines and the Road Ahead

The applicant has meticulously calculated the window for legal escalation:

• First Appeal: Typically filed within 30 days of a missed deadline or unsatisfactory reply.
• Second Appeal: Filed with the State Information Commission if the first appeal fails.

By documenting these intervals (43, 107, and 150 days), Sadhana Tiwari is signaling to the Mirzapur Police administration that procedural delays will be monitored and potentially challenged at higher commissions.

6. Conclusion: Transparency as a Catalyst for Justice

The case of Sadhana Tiwari vs. SP Office Mirzapur is a microcosm of the struggle for administrative accountability in India. When a citizen has to file multiple RTIs just to find out if a Human Rights Commission order was even read, it points to a systemic need for better digital tracking and public-facing grievance portals.

For the SP Office, Mirzapur, the path forward is simple: provide the Action Taken Report, name the responsible processing officers, and uphold the dignity of the UPHRC’s directions. Transparency is not just a statutory obligation—it is the only way to maintain public trust in the police force.

Based on the RTI application details provided and official records from the Uttar Pradesh Police, here are the structured contact and link details for the concerned public authorities in Mirzapur.

1. Core Public Authority Contact Details

The primary authority responsible for your request is the Superintendent of Police (SP) Office, Mirzapur.

Role	Name	Designation	Mobile/CUG	Email ID
PIO	Om Prakash Singh	ASP Operation	9125608556	aspopmzp@gmail.com
Nodal Officer	Om Prakash Singh	ASP Operation	7007941679	addlspopmzr@gmail.com
Appellate Authority	Somen Barma	DIG / SSP	9454400299	spmzr-up@nic.in

---

2. Application Identification Summary

These are the unique identifiers for your current and past RTI filings related to this matter:

• Current RTI Reg. No: SPMZR/R/2025/60085 (Filed: 05/04/2025)
• Previous RTI Reg. No: SPMZR/R/2024/60190 (Filed: 09/10/2024)
• UPHRC Case No: 10035/24/55/2024 (Diary No: 3613/IN/2024)
• Grievance Reg. No: GOVUP/E/2024/0093166 (Trackable via IGRS portal)

---

3. Essential Web Links for Tracking

You can use these official portals to monitor the status of your application and file further appeals if necessary.

• UP RTI Online Portal (Tracking & Filing):https://rtionline.up.gov.in/
  • Action: Click on “View Status” and enter your registration number SPMZR/R/2025/60085 and your email.
• Jansunwai (IGRS) Grievance Portal:http://jansunwai.up.nic.in/
  • Action: Use this to track the status of the complaint linked to your human rights case.
• UP Police Official Directory (Mirzapur Unit):https://uppolice.gov.in/frmOfficials.aspx?mirzapur
• State Information Commission (SIC) Uttar Pradesh:http://upsic.gov.in/
  • Action: This is for filing a Second Appeal if the First Appellate Authority (SSP Mirzapur) does not provide a satisfactory order.

---

Next Steps for You

Since your application was received on April 5, 2025, the PIO has 30 days to respond (by May 5, 2025).

Would you like me to draft a follow-up letter to the PIO specifically citing the “Right to Reason” to ensure they don’t give a vague or “not related” reply?