The Uttar Pradesh RTI Application Process examines the rejection of the second appeal that Sadhana Tiwari filed before the Uttar Pradesh Information Commission. This rejection, consequently, raises significant questions about transparency and accountability within the commission. Furthermore, the registry of the Uttar Pradesh Information Commission appears to operate under anarchy. A closer examination of the decision-making process, therefore, reveals that officials inconsistently apply rules and guidelines, leading to widespread concern among applicants seeking information. Actually, in an environment where responsibilities often remain improperly defined, advocating for a more structured and regulated approach becomes crucial. Ultimately, only through reforms can the RTI process restore trust and ensure that citizens’ rights to information are safe, thereby promoting greater participation in governance and active citizenship.

The key takeaways from the blog post:

Regarding Sadhana Tiwari’s RTI case and the UP Information Commission’s actions, the details are as follows:

• Procedural Discrepancy: Despite the RTI Act 2005 allowing 90 days for a second appeal (Section 19(3)), a Scrutinizer rejected the appeal. This rejection occurred even though the appellant filed the appeal 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• The “Shadow Amendment” Concern: The applicant is challenging whether the Commission is following an internal, unpublished rule. They are also questioning if it constitutes an unconstitutional amendment that contradicts the Central RTI Act.
• Demand for Accountability: A central focus of the inquiry is to unmask the “Scrutinizer.” Consequently, this entails moving away from anonymous bureaucratic rejections and instead, actively demanding the name and designation of the individual responsible for the decision.
• Violation of the “Right to Reason”: As a quasi-judicial body, the Commission legally obligates itself to provide a “speaking order” (a detailed explanation). Consequently, by highlighting a silent rejection at the scrutiny stage, it not only undermines the principles of natural justice but also contradicts established Supreme Court precedents.
• Institutional Irony: This case, therefore, highlights a paradoxical situation where a citizen must unfortunately file a new RTI against the Information Commission itself to discover why the Commission dismisses their original RTI appeal. This, in turn, signals a significant 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.

Uttar Pradesh RTI Application Process: Analyzing the Rejection of Sadhana Tiwari’s Second Appeal by the UP Information Commission

The Right to Information (RTI) Act of 2005 aimed to serve as the “sunlight” that would disinfect the corridors of power in India; however, recent procedural hurdles at the State Information Commission (SIC) level indicate that bureaucratic technicalities are increasingly obstructing the path to transparency.

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 not only between a citizen’s right to know but also the administrative machinery’s power to reject.

---

Uttar Pradesh RTI Application Process: A Timeline of Delay

To understand the core issue, obviously, we must first examine the chronology of Sadhana Tiwari’s pursuit of information from the Office of the Superintendent of Police, Mirzapur:

• October 9, 2024: Subsequently, the original RTI application filed (SPMZR/R/2024/60190).
• February 2, 2025: The court disposed of the First Appeal.
• February 21, 2025: The authorities marked the original RTI request as “Disposed Of.
• March 8, 2025: The Uttar Pradesh Information Commission receives a Second Appeal.
• Current Status: A “Scrutinizer” rejected the appeal and forwarded it to a Research Officer, which led 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. (Uttar Pradesh RTI Application Process)

Under the Act, the applicant must file a second appeal within 90 days from the date they should have made or actually received the decision, according to the records provided.

1. They disposed of the First Appeal on February 2, 2025.
2. The applicant filed the Second Appeal on March 8, 2025.

Mathematically, this presents a gap of only 34 days—well within the 90-day statutory limit. However, the Scrutinizer rejected the application. This discrepancy raises a vital question: Is the Commission following a “shadow law” or an unpublicized amendment that contradicts the parent Act?

---

The Three Pillars of the Current RTI Inquiry (Uttar Pradesh RTI Application Process)

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 (Uttar Pradesh RTI Application Process)

The applicant requests a copy of Section 19(3 if it has been amended. This strategic move highlights that the Scrutinizer may act ultra vires (beyond their legal power). If no such amendment exists, the rejection of the appeal directly violates the Central Act.

2. Personnel Accountability (Uttar Pradesh RTI Application Process)

By asking for the name and posting details of the Scrutinizer, the applicant is consequently moving toward personal accountability. Furthermore, 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” (Uttar Pradesh RTI Application Process)

Quoting the Apex Court, the applicant emphasizes that “Reason” is the soul of justice. Consequently, a rejection without a speaking order (a detailed explanation) constitutes a violation of natural justice. Furthermore, 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? (Uttar Pradesh RTI Application Process)

In many State Information Commissions, a “Scrutinizer” filters out incomplete or non-compliant applications. Although this role aims to save the Commission’s time, it often creates 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 (Uttar Pradesh RTI Application Process)

The Supreme Court of India has repeatedly held that Information Commissions are quasi-judicial authorities. This means:

• They must, therefore, follow the principles of Natural Justice.
• Moreover, they must provide an opportunity to be heard.
• Furthermore, they must issue speaking orders.

When a Scrutinizer at the UPIC rejects an appeal at the threshold, they are consequently performing a judicial act without the necessary transparency required of the judiciary. Moreover, the denial of information by the Circle Officer of Mirzapur (as noted in the 10th and 11th pages of the attachment) further compounds the frustration of the applicant, who is now compelled to utilize the RTI Act to uncover the reasons behind the rejection of her RTI appeal.

---

Conclusion: The Need for Institutional Transparency (Uttar Pradesh RTI Application Process)

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) (Uttar Pradesh RTI Application Process)

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. (Uttar Pradesh RTI Application Process)

• 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: (Uttar Pradesh RTI Application Process)

• 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 (Uttar Pradesh RTI Application Process)

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?