The key takeaways from the blog post:
regarding Sadhana Tiwari’s RTI case and the UP Information Commission’s actions are as follows:
- Procedural Discrepancy: Despite the RTI Act 2005 allowing 90 days for a second appeal (Section 19(3)), the appeal was rejected by a Scrutinizer even though it was filed just 34 days after the first appeal’s disposal.
- The “Shadow Amendment” Concern: The applicant is challenging whether the Commission is following an internal, unpublished rule or an unconstitutional amendment that contradicts the Central RTI Act.
- Demand for Accountability: A central focus of the inquiry is to unmask the “Scrutinizer”—moving away from anonymous bureaucratic rejections and demanding the name and designation of the person responsible for the decision.
- Violation of the “Right to Reason”: As a quasi-judicial body, the Commission is legally obligated to provide a “speaking order” (a detailed explanation). A silent rejection at the scrutiny stage is highlighted as a violation of the principles of natural justice and Supreme Court precedents.
- Institutional Irony: The case highlights a paradoxical situation where a citizen is forced to file a new RTI against the Information Commission itself to discover why their original RTI appeal was dismissed, signaling a breakdown in the transparency framework.
- Urgency of Timelines: The post emphasizes that the PIO (Mumtaz Ahmad) must respond within the 30-day statutory limit to prevent further erosion of the applicant’s legal rights.
The Accountability Deficit: Analyzing the Rejection of Sadhana Tiwari’s Second Appeal by the UP Information Commission
The Right to Information (RTI) Act of 2005 was envisioned as the “sunlight” that would disinfect the corridors of power in India. However, recent procedural hurdles at the State Information Commission (SIC) level suggest that the path to transparency is increasingly obstructed by bureaucratic technicalities.
The case of Sadhana Tiwari (Registration No: UPICM/R/2025/60156), represented by activist Yogi M. P. Singh, serves as a quintessential example of the friction between a citizen’s right to know and the administrative machinery’s power to reject.
The Genesis of the Dispute: A Timeline of Delay
To understand the core issue, we must look at the chronology of Sadhana Tiwari’s pursuit of information from the Office of the Superintendent of Police, Mirzapur:
- October 9, 2024: Original RTI application filed (SPMZR/R/2024/60190).
- February 2, 2025: The First Appeal was disposed of.
- February 21, 2025: The original RTI request was marked as “Disposed Of.
- March 8, 2025: A Second Appeal was filed with the Uttar Pradesh Information Commission.
- Current Status: The appeal was rejected by a “Scrutinizer” and forwarded to a Research Officer, leading to the current RTI inquiry into the grounds for that rejection.
The Legal Crux: Section 19(3) vs. The Scrutinizer’s Logic
The central point of contention lies in the interpretation of Section 19(3) of the RTI Act 2005.
Under the Act, a second appeal must be filed within 90 days from the date on which the decision should have been made or was actually received. According to the records provided by the applicant:
- The First Appeal was disposed of on February 2, 2025.
- The Second Appeal was filed on March 8, 2025.
Mathematically, this is a gap of only 34 days—well within the 90-day statutory limit. Yet, the application was rejected by the Scrutinizer. This discrepancy raises a vital question: Is there a “shadow law” or an unpublicized amendment being followed by the Commission that contradicts the parent Act?
The Three Pillars of the Current RTI Inquiry
Yogi M. P. Singh has pointedly asked for three specific pieces of information from the UP Information Commission’s PIO, Mumtaz Ahmad:
1. Evidence of Amendment
The applicant has requested a copy of Section 19(3) if it has been amended. This is a strategic move to highlight that the Scrutinizer may be acting ultra vires (beyond their legal power). If no such amendment exists, the rejection of the appeal is a direct violation of the Central Act.
2. Personnel Accountability
By asking for the name and posting details of the Scrutinizer, the applicant is moving toward personal accountability. In quasi-judicial proceedings, the person making a decision that affects a citizen’s rights cannot remain an anonymous “ghost in the machine.”
3. The “Right to Reason”
Quoting the Apex Court, the applicant emphasizes that “Reason” is the soul of justice. A rejection without a speaking order (a detailed explanation) is a violation of natural justice. If the UP Information Commission is acting as a quasi-judicial body, it is legally bound to provide the rationale behind rejecting an appeal that appears, on the surface, to be timely.
The Role of the “Scrutinizer”: Gatekeeper or Barrier?
In many State Information Commissions, the role of a “Scrutinizer” has been introduced to filter out incomplete or non-compliant applications. While this is intended to save the Commission’s time, it often becomes a barrier.
If a Scrutinizer rejects an appeal based on a flawed calculation of time intervals—as alleged in the case of Sadhana Tiwari—they effectively deny the citizen their final tier of remedy under the RTI Act. The mention of the application being “forwarded to a Research Officer” after rejection adds another layer of bureaucratic opacity. Is the Research Officer performing a legal audit, or is this where applications go to languish?
Judicial Precedents and the Quasi-Judicial Nature of the SIC
The Supreme Court of India has repeatedly held that Information Commissions are quasi-judicial authorities. This means:
- They must follow the principles of Natural Justice.
- They must provide an opportunity to be heard.
- They must issue speaking orders.
When a Scrutinizer at the UPIC rejects an appeal at the threshold, they are performing a judicial act without the transparency required of the judiciary. The denial of information by the Circle Officer of Mirzapur (as noted in the 10th and 11th pages of the attachment) only compounds the frustration of the applicant, who is now forced to use the RTI Act to find out why her RTI appeal was rejected.
Conclusion: The Need for Institutional Transparency
The case of UPICM/R/2025/60156 is more than just a dispute over dates; it is a test of the Uttar Pradesh Information Commission’s integrity. If the Commission, which is the custodian of transparency, becomes a “black box” where appeals disappear or are rejected by anonymous Scrutinizers without valid legal grounds, the entire RTI framework collapses.
The Public Information Officer, Mr. Mumtaz Ahmad, and the Nodal Officer, Mr. Tejaskar Pandey, now have a statutory obligation to provide the reasons for this rejection. To do otherwise would be to admit that the “Sunlight Act” has been eclipsed by the very shadows it was meant to dispel.
Based on the official records and the details provided in your RTI application, here are the structured contact and identification details for the public authorities involved in this matter.
1. Primary Public Authority: Uttar Pradesh Information Commission (UPIC)
This is the authority where your current RTI (UPICM/R/2025/60156) is pending regarding the rejection of Sadhana Tiwari’s second appeal.
| Role | Name | Designation | Contact Details |
| Concerned PIO | Mumtaz Ahmad | Administrative Officer | Ph: 9151804317 Email: jansu-section.upic@up.gov.in |
| Nodal Officer | Tejaskar Pandey | Deputy Secretary / Webmaster | Office Ph: 0522-2724930 Email: webmaster-upic@up.gov.in |
| First Appellate Authority | Abhay Singh (IAS) | Secretary | Ph: 0522-2724941 Address: Room 410, RTI Bhawan, Lucknow |
| Office Address | 7/7A, RTI Bhawan, Vibhuti Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh – 226010 |
2. Secondary Public Authority: Office of SP, Mirzapur
This authority is the original respondent in the RTI case concerning the inheritance dispute.
- PIO: Public Information Officer, Office of the Superintendent of Police, Mirzapur.
- First Appellate Authority (FAA): Somen Verma (SSP/SP Mirzapur).
- Phone: 9125608556
- District: Mirzapur (Pincode: 231001).
3. Case Tracking & Web Links
You can monitor the status of your various applications and appeals using the following official portals:
- UP State RTI Online Portal:rtionline.up.gov.in
- Use this to track your current RTI status (UPICM/R/2025/60156).
- UP Information Commission (UPIC) Official Site:upsic.up.gov.in
- Use this to check the Second Appeal status (A-20250300419) and the weekly cause list.
- UP Police Official Portal:uppolice.gov.in
- For departmental details regarding the Mirzapur SP office.
4. Important Identifiers for Reference
Keep these numbers handy for any future correspondence or legal filings:
- RTI Registration No (UPIC):
UPICM/R/2025/60156 - Second Appeal No (Sadhana Tiwari):
A-20250300419 - UPIC File Number:
S09/A/0719/2025 - Mirzapur Police RTI No:
SPMZR/R/2024/60190
Would you like me to draft a formal email to the PIO, Mumtaz Ahmad, officially requesting the “Right to Reason” document based on these contact details?
Facing a similar challenge? Share the details in the box below, and our team of experts will do their best to help.