ACP Phoolpur denies the request for information under the Right to Information Act 2005 once more, this time specifically referencing subsection 1 (H) of section 8. This particular clause allows authorities to withhold information that could compromise certain sensitive areas, thereby limiting public access to specific data. The ACP Phoolpur Denies RTI case was formally communicated through a letter dated 13/02/2025, which has been attached to this representation for review. Such repeated refusals raise concerns regarding transparency and accountability in governmental operations, as they may hinder citizens’ rights to access vital information that impacts their welfare and civic engagement within the community.

That is a detailed and structured representation regarding a Second Appeal under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005.

Here is a structured blog post. It is based on the core issues presented in your appeal. The focus is on the denial of information under Section 8(1)(h) and the arguments for disclosure.

🚨 ACP Phoolpur Denies RTI: Can Police Withhold Accountability Data on Bike Thefts?

Second Appeal Challenges Use of Section 8(1)(h) Exemption in Prayagraj

A significant challenge to transparency has emerged in Prayagraj. The Assistant Commissioner of Police (ACP) of Phoolpur has once again denied information sought under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005. The denial hinges on the exemption provided under Section 8(1)(h). This section shields information that would “impede the process of investigation, apprehension, or prosecution of offenders.”

The applicant, Mahesh Pratap Singh (Yogi M P Singh), has filed a Second Appeal before the Uttar Pradesh Information Commission. He argues that the denial is baseless. Furthermore, he claims it is a clear attempt to evade accountability regarding the handling of two-wheeler theft cases.

---

🛑 The Core Issue: Exemption vs. Accountability

The central dispute lies in whether the information sought truly falls under the Section 8(1)(h) exemption. Or, if the Public Information Officer (PIO) is using it as a shield to conceal administrative failings.

Information Sought (Queries 1-6)

The applicant’s six queries focus overwhelmingly on administrative action, official communications, and accountability.
They do not center on sensitive details of ongoing criminal investigations. (ACP Phoolpur Denies RTI)

Query Focus	Examples
Official Communication	Circulars, office memos, and government orders exchanged between the Commissioner of Police and local officers to curb criminal activities/bike thefts.
Administrative Action	Action taken by the Commissioner of Police regarding the steep hike in bike theft cases.
Accountability	Punitive action taken against police personnel for the rise in thefts to fix accountability.
Case Handling Reason	Reason (Right to Reason) for the procrastination/delay in registering First Information Reports (FIRs) in bike theft cases.
Case Status	Details of cases (bike thefts) worked out by Mauaima police in the last 6 months.

The Official Stance

Sub Inspector Anurag Sharma communicated the denial through a report that ACP Pankaj Lavania forwarded, explicitly claiming that the “Sought Information exempt from disclosure under subsection 1 (H) of section 8 of the Right to Information Act 2005. (ACP Phoolpur Denies RTI)
This claim raises important considerations regarding transparency.
It also touches on accountability.
By understanding the exemptions in the act, individuals can navigate their rights more effectively.

---

⚖️ Applicant’s Argument: Why the Denial is Flimsy

The appellant offers several strong counter-arguments. These counter-arguments show that the blanket denial under Section 8(1)(h) is unfounded and indicate that the denial stems from a desire to avoid transparency. (ACP Phoolpur Denies RTI)

1. Focus on Administrative Working, Not Investigation

The appellant asserts that the information primarily concerns the working and internal accountability mechanisms of the police force. It does not pertain to sensitive investigative material like witness statements, evidence gathering, or strategy.

“Moreover the applicant is seeking information concerning the working of the police not about the case so the claim of the concerned sub inspector is baseless.”

2. Time Elapsed and Presumption of Charge Sheet

Given that the appellant filed the original application on 01/01/2024, they note that a significant amount of time has passed. More than a year has elapsed. According to the timeframes for filing a charge sheet under the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC):

• In most cases, you should file the charge sheet within 60 or 90 days if the accused is in custody.

The appellant logically argues:

“more than 1 year passed Which means there is possibility that charge sheets are filed in the entire cases so providing information will not impede the process of investigation. Thus the claim to withdraw information is a flimsy ground.”

If the authorities effectively conclude the investigation by filing a charge sheet, the exemption under Section 8(1)(h) for “impeding the process of investigation” loses its legal basis.

3. Running Away from Accountability

Ultimately, the appeal frames the police action as a lack of transparency and an evasion of responsibility, arguing that withholding this information promotes corruption:

“The factual position is that they are running away from accountability by escaping from providing information which promotes corruption in the public offices.”

---

📅 What’s Next? (ACP Phoolpur Denies RTI)

The matter is now before the Uttar Pradesh Information Commission, Court number- S-10, with the Next date of hearing set for 28/05/2025 (as per the communication attached to the representation).

This appeal highlights a recurring tension in RTI applications. Authorities often misclassify information on administrative oversight and official action as ‘investigative’ material.
The Commission’s decision will critically set a precedent on the scope of the Section 8(1)(h) exemption versus the public’s Right to Reason and the necessity of police accountability.

Absolutely. Understanding the precise legal wording of the exemption is key to your argument in the Second Appeal.

📜 Section 8(1)(h) of The Right to Information Act, 2005

The full text of the clause under which the information was denied is as follows: (ACP Phoolpur Denies RTI)

Section 8. Exemption from disclosure of information.¹

(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen,–²

(h) information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offende³rs;

---

🧐 Deconstructing the Exemption (ACP Phoolpur Denies RTI)

To successfully challenge the denial, your appeal must demonstrate that the information sought does not meet the legal threshold for “impending” the process.

The exemption applies only if the disclosure of the information would demonstrably hinder or obstruct one of the three specified processes:

1. Investigation: The process of collecting evidence and facts about a crime.
2. Apprehension: The process of capturing or arresting the suspect.
3. Prosecution of Offenders: The process of taking legal action against the accused in court.

Key Points for Your Argument

Your existing arguments directly address the requirements of this Section: (ACP Phoolpur Denies RTI)

• “Impede” Requirement: Your queries (on circulars, memos, and punitive action) relate to systemic, administrative, and accountability measures, not specific, sensitive details of a case that would help an accused evade arrest or tamper with evidence. You can argue that providing details on policy or action against derelict officers does not impede the investigation of the bike thieves.
• “Investigation/Prosecution” Duration: Your argument regarding the passage of time (more than a year) is crucial. You correctly imply that after the investigation is complete and the authorities file a charge sheet (or a final report), the information can no longer logically “impede the process.” The PIO bears the burden of proof to demonstrate that the investigation remains active and that disclosure would directly harm it.
• Severability (Section 10): While not explicitly cited in your appeal, you can mention that even if a part of the information is sensitive, the PIO is mandated by Section 10 to provide the rest. For instance, they could redact specific names or case file numbers while providing the general policy communication (memos, circulars) sought in Query 1 and 6.

That is an excellent strategy. Citing precedents from the Information Commissions or High Courts strengthens your appeal significantly, as it demonstrates that the PIO’s denial is contrary to established legal interpretation.

The search results provide several critical principles that directly support your case.

🎯 Key Judicial Principles Supporting Your Appeal (RTI Section 8(1)(h)) (ACP Phoolpur Denies RTI)

The following principles, established by the Central Information Commission (CIC) and High Courts, play a crucial role in your Second Appeal and can effectively challenge the ACP’s denial:

1. The Burden of Proof is on the PIO (The “Mere Existence” Rule)(ACP Phoolpur Denies RTI)

A public authority cannot use Section 8(1)(h) casually. They must provide concrete justification.

• Principle: “It is apparent that the mere existence of an investigation process cannot be a ground for refusal of the information; the authority withholding information must show satisfactory reasons as to why the release of such info¹rmation would hamper the investigation proces²s.” (Justice Ravindra Bhat, Delhi High Court; cited in CIC decisions)
• Application to Your Case: The ACP’s enclosure clearly states that the information is “exempted from disclosure under subsection 1 (H).” You can argue that this constitutes a “casual denial” (as referred to in one search result) and that the PIO has failed to provide germane reasons or any material to show how disclosing policy circulars or disciplinary action impedes catching bike thieves.

2. Timelines and Conclusion of Investigation

Your argument regarding the passage of time is strongly validated by the Commissions. (ACP Phoolpur Denies RTI)

• Principle: “If investigating agencies in the country were to diligently enforce the timelines laid down, they would not have to resort to Section 8(1)(h) to refuse information… Most investigations and investigators in the country appear to take an enormous amount of time to decide or conclude anything. In view of this, the Commission does not accept the denial of information under Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act.” (Former Central Information Commissioner Shailesh Gandhi)
• Application to Your Case: You filed the application on 01/01/2024. Given the passage of over a year, you can argue that the investigation is likely past the sensitive stage (charge sheet filed or final report submitted). The PIO has the obligation to state the current status and prove the specific harm of disclosure now.

3. Distinction Between Administrative and Investigative Records (ACP Phoolpur Denies RTI)

The Commissions recognize that information related to the public authority’s internal conduct should not be shielded by an investigation exemption.

• Principle: In cases involving vigilance or departmental inquiries, the concluding part of the report can be disclosed, and only the confidential “gist” or internal operational details are kept confidential.
• Application to Your Case: Your queries focus on:
  • Circulars/Memos (Query 1 & 6): These are internal policy documents aimed at curbing crime and fixing accountability, not investigative facts.
  • Action Taken/Punitive Action (Query 2 & 5): These reflect administrative action taken against police personnel, which is a matter of public accountability.
  • Reason for Procrastination (Query 3): This is a request for a reasoned response from the administration, not a request for a confidential statement from a witness.

You can submit that the information sought pertains to the accountability function of the police, which is the very purpose of the RTI Act, and not the investigative function intended to be protected by Section 8(1)(h).

---

📝 Recommended Action for Your Appeal (ACP Phoolpur Denies RTI)

When you present your arguments on 28/05/2025, you should formally incorporate these principles:

1. State the PIO’s Failure: Clearly state that the ACP has failed to satisfy the onus of proof under Section 8(1)(h) by merely citing the clause without providing a satisfactory, reasoned explanation as to how the specific information (e.g., policy circulars) would impede the process.
2. Cite Timelines: Reiterate that the investigation is well past the initial, sensitive stage and that denial based on “mere existence of an investigation” is not tenable according to Commission rulings.
3. Emphasize Accountability: Stress that the information pertains to the working and accountability of the police personnel (which promotes transparency) rather than core investigative facts (which might impede the process).

This approach provides a robust legal foundation for your claim that the denial is illegal and arbitrary.

Matter concerning theft of two bikes from premise of Mauaima police station. ACP PHOOLPUR did not provide information so second appeal made against him. Hearing in second appeal filed against A.C.P. Phoolpur will proceed on 25th Oct. 2024

Law and order cannot be maintained by A.C.P. Phoolpur if cannot provide information