RTI Appeal Updates on Information Denial highlights the denial of information by the Public Information Officer (PIO) in the office of the Superintendent of Police Mirzapur. This occurrence, consequently, raises significant concerns regarding transparency and accountability within the police department. Furthermore, citizens seeking information under the Right to Information Act possess a fundamental right to access data that pertains to public interest and governance. The denial of such information, therefore, can erode public trust and hinder the ability of citizens to effectively participate in democratic processes. As a result, individuals affected by such denials have the option to file appeals, thereby seeking redress and ensuring that their right to information is upheld. Monitoring these appeal updates is, ultimately, crucial to fostering a culture of openness and accountability.

Based on the blog post detailing the RTI struggle in Mirzapur,

here are the key takeaways summarized for quick reference:

1. The “Privacy Shield” is Often Misused

A major takeaway is that public authorities frequently use Section 8(1)(j) (Privacy) as a default excuse to deny information. Consequently, this case proves that the names, designations, and posting histories of public officials are not “private” data; rather, they are matters of public record essential for administrative accountability.

2. Digital Portals Require Human Accountability

The dispute highlighted a “Digital Ghost” problem. While the RTI process is moving online, the failure to update names (showing officers transferred years ago) creates a barrier for citizens. Information is only as good as it is current.

3. Consistency Wins the Battle

The timeline of the five hearings (from October 2024 to April 2025) demonstrates that the system often relies on applicant fatigue. By not dropping the case after the initial denial, the appellant forced the PIO to eventually update the portal and provide the correct details to avoid penalties from the Commission.

4. Violation of Section 4 (Proactive Disclosure)

Under the RTI Act, public authorities are supposed to proactively disclose the names and details of their PIOs and FAAs. Unfortunately, this case highlights a systemic failure, illustrating how the citizen had to battle extensively for information that should have been publicly available on the department’s website without an RTI request.

5. Transparency as a Corrective Tool

The eventual disclosure served a dual purpose:

• Moreover, it provided the specific information requested.
• Consequently, it forced the SSP office to update their internal digital infrastructure, thereby benefiting all future RTI applicants in Mirzapur.

This blog post examines a significant RTI case from Mirzapur, Uttar Pradesh, thus highlighting the friction between citizens’ right to transparency and the bureaucratic tendency to, regrettably, withhold information under the guise of privacy.

---

RTI Appeal Updates on Information Denial: The Legal Battle Over RTI Accountability in Mirzapur

The Right to Information (RTI) Act of 2005 was designed to be the “sunlight” that disinfects the dark corners of bureaucracy. However, as illustrated by the recent case of Yogi M. P. Singh vs. The Office of the Senior Superintendent of Police (SSP), Mirzapur, it becomes increasingly apparent that the path to transparency is consistently obstructed by administrative hurdles and a misinterpretation of the law.

What began as a simple request for the names and designations of public officials turned into a year-long legal struggle involving multiple hearings at the State Information Commission.

1. The Core of the Dispute: Seeking Identity in the Digital Age

The appellant, Yogi M. P. Singh, noticed a glaring discrepancy on the official RTI online portal. When attempting to file or track requests, the portal displayed names of officers who were no longer posted in Mirzapur. Specifically, names like Ajay Kumar Singh and Mahesh Singh Atri appeared as Nodal Officers or Public Information Officers (PIOs) long after their transfers. (RTI Appeal Updates on Information Denial)

Seeking to correct the record and ensure he was communicating with the legally responsible authority, Singh filed an RTI requesting:

• Additionally, posting details and descriptions of the Nodal Officer enhances clarity and improves communication.
• Furthermore, the current status and posting details of the PIO.
• Furthermore, the identity and description of the First Appellate Authority (FAA) are crucial for understanding the appeals process.

2. The Initial Denial: Misusing Section 8(1)(j)(RTI Appeal Updates on Information Denial)

Initially, the PIO at the SSP office in Mirzapur summarily rejected the request; furthermore, the justification provided was a classic example of bureaucratic overreach. Moreover, the office cited Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, which exempts information that:

1. Is personal in nature.
2. Has no relationship to any public activity or interest.
3. Would cause an unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual.

The PIO also invoked Section 11, claiming the data belonged to a “third party.” This denial was later upheld by the First Appellate Authority (the Superintendent of Police), effectively stalling the flow of information.

3. The Fallacy of the Privacy Argument

The crux of this legal issue, therefore, lies in the definition of “personal information.” Furthermore, legal precedents from various High Courts and the Supreme Court of India have repeatedly established that:

• The name, designation, and posting history of a public servant are not private.
• A citizen has every right to know who is presiding over a public office, especially one as critical as the RTI cell.
• Details of a “Nodal Officer” are, by definition, public. This is primarily because they serve as the essential bridge between the state and the citizen.

By claiming that the name of a Nodal Officer is “personal information,” the Mirzapur SSP office, in effect, essentially attempted to create a “faceless” bureaucracy; a move that is, in fact, antithetical to the RTI Act.

4. The Turning Point: Commission Intervention and the “Update”

Following the denial, the appellant moved to the Information Commission. The timeline of the case shows the persistence required to fight such denials:

• Case Registered: Mid-2024 (A-20240701863)
• Multiple Hearings: Subsequently, there will be hearings in October 2024, followed by December 2024, continuing into January 2025, and ultimately concluding in February 2025.

Under the pressure of a “Further Hearing” scheduled for April 2025 at the Commission, the PIO finally yielded. On February 23, 2025, a formal letter (JSUOnline-26/2024) was issued, admitting that the online portal had been displaying outdated information.

5. The Revelation: Correcting the Record

The updated response finally provided the clarity the appellant had sought for nearly a year:

• Ajay Kumar Singh: Served as Nodal Officer until June 2020.
• Mahesh Singh Atri: Served from July 2020 until February 2023.
• Om Prakash Singh: The current PIO/Nodal Officer since March 2023.

The office admitted that the online portal’s failure to update these names had indeed caused significant confusion. Furthermore, they confirmed that the current First Appellate Authority is Shri Abhinandan (Superintendent of Police).

6. Systemic Implications: Why This Case Matters

This case is not just about a few names; rather, it highlights several systemic failures in the implementation of the RTI Act in local police departments.

A. Digital Negligence

The fact that a portal displayed the name of an officer transferred four years ago (Ajay Kumar Singh) clearly indicates a significant lack of administrative oversight. In the context of a digital-first governance model, keeping RTI portals updated is undeniably a mandatory duty, rather than an optional task.

B. Standardized Denials

The use of “Section 8(1)(j)” as a blanket shield is a common tactic employed by PIOs to discourage applicants; however, this case serves as a timely reminder that such denials should be challenged, as they frequently do not hold up under the scrutiny of the Information Commission.

C. The Cost of Delay

The appellant had to wait through five hearing cycles, consequently, to obtain information that should have been readily available on the office notice board or, alternatively, on the department website under Section 4 (Sua Sponte Disclosure) of the RTI Act.

7. Conclusion: The Power of Persistence (RTI Appeal Updates on Information Denial)

The Mirzapur SSP office case ends with a victory for the appellant, but it exposes the “delayed-response” strategy often employed by public authorities. By the time the information was provided in February 2025, the confusion had persisted for years.

The lesson for RTI activists and citizens is clear: Persistence pays. Moreover, when a PIO cites privacy for public designations, it is a clear sign of procedural weakness. Ultimately, the goal of the RTI is to ensure that every “Om Prakash Singh” and “Mahesh Singh Atri” in the system understands that they are accountable to the “Yogi M. P. Singhs” of the public. (RTI Appeal Updates on Information Denial)

Below are the essential contact and portal details for the public authorities involved in your case at the Office of the Senior Superintendent of Police (SSP), Mirzapur; furthermore, these details will facilitate a smoother communication process.

1. UP State RTI Portal Details (RTI Appeal Updates on Information Denial)

To file new requests, track existing ones, or submit appeals electronically, use the official Uttar Pradesh Government portal.¹

Feature	Details
Official Website	https://rtionline.up.gov.in
Technical Help Desk	0522-7118629 (10:00 AM – 5:00 PM)
Help Desk Email	onlinertihelpline.up@gov.in
Application Fee	₹10 (Exempt for BPL with valid certificate)

2. Concerned Public Authority: SSP Mirzapur (RTI Appeal Updates on Information Denial)

Based on the updated information from your appeal, here are the direct contact details for the senior officials in Mirzapur:

• Public Information Officer (PIO):
  • Name: Om Prakash Singh (Additional SP, Operations)²
  • Mobile No: 9454401105
  • Email ID: asp-op.mi@up.gov.in
• First Appellate Authority (FAA):
  • Name: Shri Abhinandan (Superintendent of Police)
  • Mobile No: 9454400299
  • Email ID: spmzr-up@nic.in³
• Nodal Officer (Updated):
  • Current Officer: Om Prakash Singh (ASPO)⁴
  • Web Link for Mirzapur Police Officials: UP Police Official Contact Page

3. UP State Information Commission (UPSIC) (RTI Appeal Updates on Information Denial)

Since your case has reached the hearing stage, you may need to contact the Commission directly for diary updates or hearing schedules.

• Website: http://upsic.gov.in
• Address: 7/7 A, RTI Bhavan, Vibhuti Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow, UP – 226010.
• General Inquiry: 0522-2724930
• Email: webmaster.upic@gmail.com⁵

---

Important Application IDs to Note (RTI Appeal Updates on Information Denial)

From the data you provided, please keep these reference numbers handy for all future correspondence:

• Appeal Number: S-09/A/1295/2024
• Registration Number: A-20240701863
• Office Letter Reference: JSUOnline-26/2024 (Dated 23/02/2025)

Would you like me to help you draft a “Non-Compliance Report” to the Information Commission if the PIO fails to provide the remaining physical documents by the next hearing?