Here are the key takeaways from the blog post regarding the transparency deadlock in Uttar Pradesh’s administration:

• The Compliance Gap: Despite a strict Government Order (GO) dated January 4, 2024, requiring all PCS officers to disclose their movable and immovable assets by January 31, 2024, there is a significant lack of evidence that these orders are being followed on the ground.
• Weaponizing “Personal Information”: Public Information Officers (PIOs) are frequently misusing the “personal information” exemption under the RTI Act. While specific property values might be private, the status of compliance (whether an officer has filed or not) is a matter of public administrative record.
• The “Sparrow Portal” Shield: The digital platform sparrow-pcs.up.gov.in is being used as a technical excuse. District offices often claim they cannot provide information because the data is handled via individual IDs and passwords, effectively creating a “black box” where accountability disappears.
• Administrative “Ping-Pong”: The Chief Minister’s Office and District Collectorates often forward RTI applications between departments rather than providing a direct answer. This circular movement of paperwork serves to exhaust the applicant and delay the disclosure of non-compliance.
• Systemic Resistance: There is a visible disconnect between the political leadership’s “zero tolerance” rhetoric and the bureaucratic reality. The reluctance of senior PCS officers to use the SPARROW portal suggests a deep-seated resistance to digital auditing and public scrutiny.
• The Appellant’s Clarification: A crucial distinction is made: the public is not necessarily asking for private bank balances, but rather a list of names and designations of those who obeyed the law versus those who ignored it.

In a democratic framework, the Right to Information (RTI) Act is the bridge between the citizen and the state. However, recent developments in Uttar Pradesh suggest a growing divide between government directives for transparency and their actual administrative compliance.^{1 At the heart of this issue is the SPARROW-PCS portal, a digital platform designed for the mandatory disclosure of assets by provincial civil servants.2}

Despite clear orders from Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath, the process has hit a wall of administrative silence and technical avoidance.

---

The Core Issue: Transparency vs. Administrative Silence

The conflict centers on a Government Order (GO) dated January 4, 2024, which mandated that all officers of the Uttar Pradesh Civil Service (Executive Branch) disclose their movable and immovable assets online.³ The deadline was set for January 31, 2024.⁴

While the political leadership has flapped the banner of “zero tolerance” toward corruption, the ground reality reflects a different story. When citizens use the RTI Act to ask for a list of officers who complied with these orders, they are often met with evasive replies. Public Information Officers (PIOs) frequently claim that such information is “personal” or that the records are not maintained at the district level—despite the fact that the District Magistrate is the supervisory authority for these subordinates.

What is the SPARROW Portal?

The Smart Performance Appraisal Report Recording Online Window (SPARROW) is an online system introduced to digitize the Annual Performance Appraisal Reports (APARs) and asset disclosures of civil servants.⁵

The goal was to replace the opaque, paper-based system with a streamlined digital trail. For PCS officers in UP, the portal sparrow-pcs.up.gov.in was specifically designated for property returns.

---

Why are Public Servants Avoiding Disclosure?

The reluctance of officials to use the SPARROW portal or disclose their assets points to several systemic and psychological barriers:

• The “Personal Information” Shield: Many officials argue that their asset details are personal.^{6 However, the RTI Act and various Supreme Court judgments have clarified that the assets of public servants—who are paid by the taxpayer—are a matter of public interest, especially when a government order mandates their disclosure.}
• Lack of Accountability at the District Level: As seen in recent RTI appeals (such as Yogi M.P. Singh vs. PIO, Mirzapur), district offices often claim they do not have the “ID and Password” for the portal, shifting the burden back to the state government.⁷ This creates a data silo where no one person is held responsible for monitoring compliance.
• Fear of Scrutiny: Voluntary disclosure makes it easier to track disproportionate assets. By delaying or avoiding the portal, officials bypass the immediate digital audit that the SPARROW system was designed to facilitate.

---

The RTI Battle: A Case Study in Mirzapur and Prayagraj

The struggle for this information is epitomized by persistent RTI applications seeking the names and designations of staff who complied—or failed to comply—with the 2024 asset disclosure order.

Requested Information	PIO Response / Status
Names of staff who disclosed assets by Jan 31, 2024	Claimed as “Personal Information” or “Record not available”
Action taken against non-compliant staff	Often ignored or forwarded between departments
Communications regarding the Jan 4, 2024 order	Minimal disclosure of internal memos

The Chief Minister’s Office (CMO) has, in several instances, forwarded these RTI queries to multiple departments, leading to a “merry-go-round” where the applicant never receives a concrete answer.^{8 This administrative “ping-pong” effectively buries the core issue of non-compliance.}

---

The Consequences of Non-Compliance

The Yogi Adityanath government has shown it can be firm; in September 2024, the state reportedly withheld the salaries of over 2.44 lakh employees who failed to declare their assets on the Manav Sampada portal.⁹ However, the specific disclosure for PCS officers on the SPARROW portal remains a murky area.

When high-ranking officers avoid these digital systems, it sends a message of impunity to the lower ranks. It suggests that transparency is a “voluntary” suggestion rather than a mandatory requirement of service.

“The appellant is not seeking property details but seeking information concerning the compliance of the government order… which is not being complied by the public servants.” — Extract from RTI Appeal S9/A/0728/2024

---

The Way Forward: Bridging the Gap

To restore public trust, the following steps are essential:

1. Mandatory Reporting of Compliance Stats: District Magistrates should be required to maintain a public list of officers who have successfully filed their returns on the SPARROW portal.
2. Harmonizing RTI with Digital Portals: PIOs should not be allowed to use “technical ignorance” of a portal as an excuse to deny information regarding administrative compliance.
3. Strict Disciplinary Action: Just as salaries were withheld for junior employees, senior PCS officers should face similar consequences for bypassing the SPARROW system.

The failure to provide information about who is following the law is as dangerous as the failure to follow the law itself. Until the “Mystery of the Sparrow Portal” is solved, the promise of transparent governance in Uttar Pradesh will remain incomplete.

To assist with your ongoing legal and administrative follow-ups, here are the essential contact details and digital links for the concerned public authorities mentioned in your appeal.

---

1. Uttar Pradesh State Information Commission (UPSIC)

This is the primary body handling your current appeal (S9/A/0728/2024).

• Website: upsic.up.gov.in
• Address: 7/7A, RTI Bhawan, Vibhuti Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow, UP.
• Hearing Room (S-9) Email: hearingcourts9.upic@up.gov.in
• General Inquiry Email: webmaster-upic@up.gov.in / jansu-section.upic@up.gov.in
• Phone: 0522-2724930

---

2. Chief Minister’s Office (CMO) – Uttar Pradesh

Specifically regarding the Arvind Mohan reference and compliance with the CM’s directives.

• Website: upcmo.up.nic.in
• Joint Secretary (Arvind Mohan): 0522-2226350
• Section Officer (RTI Cell): 0522-2226455
• General Email: cmup@nic.in
• Address: Lok Bhawan, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh.

---

3. District Magistrate (DM) Offices

The local authorities responsible for overseeing the compliance of the January 4, 2024, government order.

District Magistrate, Mirzapur

• Website: mirzapur.nic.in
• CUG/Mobile: 9454417567
• Office Phone: 05442-252480
• Email: dmmir@nic.in

District Magistrate, Prayagraj

• Website: prayagraj.nic.in
• CUG/Mobile: 9454417517
• Office Phone: 0532-2440515
• Email: dmall@nic.in

---

4. Digital Portals for Asset Disclosure

• SPARROW PCS Portal:sparrow-pcs.up.gov.in
  • Used for provincial civil servants (Executive Branch) to fill their property returns.
• Manav Sampada Portal:ehrms.upsdc.gov.in
  • Used for broader employee asset declaration and service records.

---

Key References for your Case

• Appeal Number: S9/A/0728/2024
• Governing Rule: Section 9 (1) of the Uttar Pradesh Right to Information Rules, 2015.
• Targeted Government Order: No. 1/114964/2021 dated 16.11.2021 (Appointment Section-7) regarding mandatory asset disclosure.

Would you like me to draft a specific “Point-wise Objection” letter based on these contact details to be sent to the Mirzapur District Magistrate’s office as directed by the Commission?