UP Property Disclosure Hesitation is the key issue concerning the government in Uttar Pradesh. Notably, it is a well-known fact that in the state of Uttar Pradesh, most of the departments of the government are running away from providing information regarding their compliance with government orders pertaining to the voluntary disclosure of assets by provincial civil servants. Consequently, this lack of transparency not only undermines accountability but also raises significant concerns about corruption and inefficiency within the bureaucracy. Furthermore, stakeholders argue that without a commitment to open government and clear communication channels, public trust will continue to erode, thereby complicating efforts to promote good governance and ethical conduct.

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, many officers are failing to follow these orders in practice, leading to a significant lack of evidence that compliance is taking place 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 serves as a technical excuse. District offices frequently assert that they cannot provide information because individuals manage their data through IDs and passwords, effectively transforming it into a “black box” where accountability vanishes.

Cryptic Role of Chief Minister Office

• 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 noticeable disconnect between the political leadership’s “zero tolerance” rhetoric and the bureaucratic reality. Moreover, the reluctance of senior PCS officers to utilize the SPARROW portal suggests a deep-seated resistance to digital auditing and public scrutiny.
• The Appellant’s Clarification: A crucial distinction is obvious: the public is not necessarily asking for private bank balances, but rather a list of names and designations of those who follow the law versus those who ignore 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.

---

UP Property Disclosure Hesitation: Transparency vs. Administrative Silence

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

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

What is the SPARROW Portal?

The Smart Performance Appraisal Report Recording Online Window (SPARROW) not only digitizes the Annual Performance Appraisal Reports (APARs) but also streamlines the asset disclosures of civil servants through an efficient online system. (UP Property Disclosure Hesitation)

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 highlights, furthermore, several systemic and psychological barriers: (UP Property Disclosure Hesitation)

• The “Personal Information” Shield: Many officials argue that their asset details are personal. However, the RTI Act and various Supreme Court judgments clarify that the assets of public servants—who taxpayers pay—are a matter of public interest, especially when a government order mandates their disclosure.
• Lack of Accountability at the District Level: Recently, in the case of Yogi M.P. Singh vs. PIO, Mirzapur, it has become evident that district offices often claim they do not possess the “ID and Password” for the portal. Consequently, this situation shifts the burden back to the state government. Furthermore, this practice creates a data silo, where, ultimately, no individual is held responsible for monitoring compliance.
• Fear of Scrutiny: Consequently, voluntary disclosure makes it easier to track disproportionate assets. By delaying or avoiding the portal, officials effectively bypass the immediate digital audit that the SPARROW system is specifically designed to facilitate.

---

The RTI Battle: A Case Study in Mirzapur and Prayagraj (UP Property Disclosure Hesitation)

The struggle for this information is epitomized by persistent RTI applications, where, ultimately, individuals seek the names and designations of staff who either complied with 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 (UP Property Disclosure Hesitation)

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: (UP Property Disclosure Hesitation)

1. Mandatory Reporting of Compliance Stats: Consequently, District Magistrates must maintain a public list of officers who, in turn, successfully file their returns on the SPARROW portal.
2. Harmonizing RTI with Digital Portals: Consequently, PIOs must not use “technical ignorance” of a portal as an excuse to deny information regarding administrative compliance.
3. Strict Disciplinary Action: Just as they withheld salaries for junior employees, similarly, the authorities should impose comparable consequences on senior PCS officers who, moreover, bypass the SPARROW system.

The failure to provide information about who is following the law poses a danger equal to violating the law itself. Until we solve the “Mystery of the Sparrow Portal,” we cannot fulfill the promise of transparent governance in Uttar Pradesh.

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

---

1. Uttar Pradesh State Information Commission (UPSIC) (UP Property Disclosure Hesitation)

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. (UP Property Disclosure Hesitation)

• 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 (UP Property Disclosure Hesitation)

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

District Magistrate, Mirzapur (UP Property Disclosure Hesitation)

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

District Magistrate, Prayagraj (UP Property Disclosure Hesitation)

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

---

4. Digital Portals for Asset Disclosure (UP Property Disclosure Hesitation)

• 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 (UP Property Disclosure Hesitation)

• 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?