Here are the key takeaways:

from the blog post regarding the RTI inquiry into the UP Police’s request for OTPs:

• The Conflict of Interest: There is a direct contradiction between the government’s “Never Share OTP” safety campaigns and the practice of police officers asking for OTPs to close grievance files on the Jansunwai (IGRS) portal.
• Cybersecurity Risk: When police personnel ask for OTPs over the phone, they inadvertently normalize a behavior used by cybercriminals, making citizens more vulnerable to future financial fraud and “vishing” attacks.
• Procedural Shortcuts: The practice is likely driven by administrative pressure to meet disposal quotas. Officers seek the OTP to manually mark cases as “Satisfied” in the system, which may bypass the complainant’s actual verification of the resolution.
• Legal Scrutiny via RTI: The RTI application (Registration No: SPMZR/R/2025/60087) specifically challenges the legal validity of this practice, asking for the Government Orders or circulars that authorize officials to solicit confidential codes.
• Public Safety Advice: Despite the request coming from an official-sounding source, sharing an OTP remains a high-risk activity. The integrity of the grievance system depends on the user entering the code privately, not dictating it to staff.

Would you like me to help you summarize the specific legal sections (Section 420 IPC, 66C/66D IT Act) mentioned in your RTI to strengthen your argument?

This blog post explores the critical intersection of digital grievance redressal systems and cybersecurity awareness, focusing on the recent controversy surrounding the Uttar Pradesh Police’s use of OTPs (One-Time Passwords) for feedback verification.

---

The OTP Paradox: Grievance Redressal vs. Cyber Security in Uttar Pradesh

In an era where “Never Share Your OTP” is the golden rule of digital safety, a confusing trend has emerged in the administrative landscape of Uttar Pradesh. Complainants using the Jansunwai (IGRS) portal report receiving calls from police personnel asking for One-Time Passwords to “close” or “verify” the satisfaction level of their grievances.

This practice has triggered a formal RTI (Right to Information) intervention by activist Yogi M. P. Singh against the Superintendent of Police Office in Mirzapur, raising a fundamental question: Is the state government inadvertently using the tools of cybercriminals to manage public feedback?

1. The Core of the Controversy: Feedback or Fraud?

The Jansunwai portal is designed to streamline public grievances. When a complaint is “resolved,” the system often requires a verification step to ensure the complainant is satisfied. This is typically done via an OTP sent to the registered mobile number.

The conflict arises when police officers—in an attempt to meet disposal quotas or finalize reports—call citizens directly and ask them to dictate the OTP over the phone. While the officer may see this as a procedural shortcut to mark a case as “satisfied,” for the citizen, it mirrors the exact tactics used in vishing (voice phishing) and bank fraud.

2. The RTI Inquiry: Seeking Accountability in Mirzapur

The RTI application filed on April 9, 2025 (Registration No: SPMZR/R/2025/60087), highlights a specific incident involving a call from a number associated with the Mirzapur police. The applicant raised three critical points that every citizen should consider:

• Authentication of Personnel: If a caller identifies as police but asks for an OTP, how is a citizen to distinguish them from a cybercriminal?
• The Purpose of the OTP: Is the OTP meant for the citizen to enter into a private portal, or is it legally permissible for an official to ask for it verbally?
• Official Authorization: Does a Government Order (GO) or circular exist that explicitly permits police personnel to seek OTPs from the public?

3. The Cybersecurity Risk: A “Bad Precedent”

The Uttar Pradesh police are often the first line of defense against cybercrime. However, by asking for OTPs, they may be dismantling the very psychological barriers experts have worked years to build.

• Normalizing Risky Behavior: When a legitimate authority figure asks for an OTP, the citizen is conditioned to believe that sharing such codes is safe. This makes them significantly more vulnerable to actual financial fraudsters later.
• The Shadow of the Law: Ironically, the RTI mentions that the underlying case involves Section 420 of the IPC and Sections 66C and 66D of the IT Act—laws specifically designed to punish identity theft and personation. If police engage in practices that resemble “personation” or “unauthorized access,” it creates a legal and moral paradox.

4. Why the Police Ask for OTPs

From an administrative perspective, the pressure to show a “100% Redressal Rate” on the IGRS portal is immense.

1. Closing the Loop: The system requires verification to move a ticket from “Pending” to “Resolved.”
2. Digital Illiteracy: Many complainants are not tech-savvy enough to log in and enter the OTP themselves. Officers often feel they are “helping” the process by doing it on the citizen’s behalf.
3. Efficiency Metrics: High-ranking officials track the “Satisfaction Rating” of districts. Seeking the OTP manually ensures the officer can mark the case as “Satisfied” before the deadline.

5. The Government’s Responsibility

The RTI filed against ASP Operation Om Prakash Singh in Mirzapur demands to know if there is a circular supporting this. In most standard operating procedures (SOPs) for digital governance, sharing an OTP with a third party—even an official—is strictly prohibited. If the government intended for the feedback to be genuine, the OTP should be entered by the citizen on a secure portal or through an automated IVR (Interactive Voice Response) system, never shared via a human-to-human phone call.

---

Conclusion: Protecting the Integrity of Public Trust

The police must lead by example. Asking for an OTP, even for a benign reason like feedback, creates a “security loophole” in the mind of the public. If the UP Police wish to redress grievances effectively, they must do so without compromising the digital hygiene of the citizenry.

As we await the response from the PIO of Mirzapur, the message to the public remains clear: Be cautious. A legitimate grievance redressal should never require you to compromise your digital security.

To assist you in your pursuit of transparency regarding the RTI filed, here are the structured details for the concerned public authorities and portal involved in your application.

1. Application & Portal Details

These links are for tracking your existing grievance or checking official government orders regarding the Jansunwai mechanism.¹

• Jansunwai (Samadhan) Portal: jansunwai.up.nic.in
• Track Grievance Status: jansunwai.up.nic.in/TrackStatus
• Official RTI Portal (UP): rtionline.up.gov.in
• UP Police Official Website: uppolice.gov.in

---

2. Public Authority Contact Details (Mirzapur)

Based on official records and your RTI filing, the following are the contact points for the Superintendent of Police Office, Mirzapur:

Designation	Name of Officer	Mobile / CUG	Official Email
DIG / SSP Mirzapur	Somen Barma	9454400299	spmzr-up@nic.in
ASP Operation (PIO)	Manish Kumar Mishra*	9454401105	asp-op.mi@up.gov.in
ASP City	Nitesh Singh	9454401104	asp-city.mi@up.gov.in
SP (L&O) / DGP HQ	Om Prakash Singh-II	9454400202	uppcc-up@nic.in

Note: While your RTI mentions Om Prakash Singh as ASP Operation, recent official directories list Manish Kumar Mishra in that specific role for Mirzapur, while Om Prakash Singh-II is currently posted at DGP HQ Lucknow. For RTI purposes, always address the “Public Information Officer, Office of the SP Mirzapur” to ensure delivery regardless of individual transfers.

---

3. Nodal Officers & Technical Support

If you encounter technical issues with the portal or need to escalate a lack of response:

• Nodal Officer (Jansunwai): Shri Arvind Mohan (Joint Secretary, Chief Minister Office)²
• Technical Email: jansunwai-up@gov.in (For portal errors only)
• DGP Complaint Cell: digcomplaint-up@nic.in or dgpcontrol-up@nic.in

4. Summary of Referenced Legal Sections

In your correspondence, you may find these definitions helpful for your argument:

• Section 420 IPC: Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property.
• Section 66C IT Act: Punishment for identity theft (using another person’s password/OTP).
• Section 66D IT Act: Punishment for cheating by personation by using computer resources.

Would you like me to draft a formal reminder letter for your RTI if you do not receive a response within the 30-day limit?