Uttar Pradesh RTI Second Appeal only brings despair to the citizens in the state. Consider the gravity of the situation: Public Information Officers in the state, unfortunately, ignore the RTI applications, even after they receive notices from the Commission. This blatant disregard for transparency not only undermines the fundamental right to information but also significantly erodes public trust in government institutions. Consequently, citizens depend on the RTI to hold officials accountable; however, they find themselves increasingly frustrated and powerless. Furthermore, the lack of proper responses to legitimate requests highlights a systemic issue that requires immediate attention to ensure that the principles of democracy are both upheld and honored.
Key Takeaways from Mahima Maurya’s Case
1. The Core Conflict: Transparency vs. Deflection
The primary issue is not the original dispute, but the failure of the Public Authority to provide specific administrative data. While the appellant asked for the “paper trail” (receipts, names of handlers, and file notings) regarding a Human Rights Commission order, the PIO instead provided a subjective police investigation report. This is a classic case of providing related but non-responsive information to avoid accountability.
2. Disregard for Higher Authority (Uttar Pradesh RTI Second Appeal)
The Uttar Pradesh Human Rights Commission (UPHRC) had issued a specific mandate for the Superintendent of Police to act within six weeks. The RTI wa
A tool that citizens use to verify whether that mandate is competent reveals a systemic gap in how local departments process directives from oversight bodies, especially as the police’s failure to show how that order they processed indicates.
3. Failure of the Internal Appeals Process
The First Appellate Authority (FAA), which is supposed to act as an internal check on the PIO, unfortunately failed to correct the error. Consequently, by validating an incomplete response, the FAA compelled the citizen to escalate the matter to the State Commission, thereby highlighting a significant lack of rigorous oversight within the Mirzapur Police administration.
4. The “Right to Reason” (Uttar Pradesh RTI Second Appeal)
A significant legal takeaway emphasizes the Right to Reason. The appellant argues that if the administration fails to act on the UPHRC order, it must legally provide the reasoning behind that inaction. Silence or “arbitrary reports” do not fulfill the legal requirements of a sound administrative system.
5. Citizen Resilience and the RTI
The case demonstrates that the RTI Act empowers rural citizens to challenge administrative “anarchy” or lawlessness. Despite the local police labeling her a “habitual” applicant, Mahima Maurya effectively utilized the multi-tier appeal system to ensure her grievances reached the State level in Lucknow.
Uttar Pradesh RTI Second Appeal: The Case of Mahima Maurya and the Mirzapur Police
In the heart of Uttar Pradesh, a legal battle is currently unfolding that highlights a systemic challenge in the Indian administrative machinery: the struggle for transparency. What initially began as a local dispute has, over time, evolved into a significant Second Appeal before the Uttar Pradesh Information Commission (UPIC). Moreover, the case of Mahima Maurya vs. The Public Information Officer (Mirzapur Police) is not merely about a missing First Information Report (FIR); rather, it delves into the accountability of public officials and the efficacy of the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005.
The Genesis: A Human Rights Mandate
The story begins with Mahima Maurya, a resident of Village Godasar Sarpati, Mirzapur, who sought justice after the local Vindhyachal police allegedly failed to register her FIR following a physical altercation. Faced with administrative silence, Mahima approached the Uttar Pradesh Human Rights Commission (UPHRC). (Uttar Pradesh RTI Second Appeal)
Recognizing the gravity of her grievance, the UPHRC issued a clear directive on October 21, 2024 (Case No. 14054/24). Subsequently, the Commission ordered the Superintendent of Police (SP), Mirzapur, to look into the matter and take necessary action in accordance with the law within six weeks. However, this order should have been the catalyst for prompt administrative action; instead, it unfortunately became the starting point for a complex RTI battle. (Uttar Pradesh RTI Second Appeal)
The RTI Inquiry: Seeking the “Paper Trail”
On November 14, 2024, Mahima filed an RTI application seeking five specific points of information regarding the UPHRC order. Her queries were precise and aimed at identifying the “human element” behind the administrative process: (Uttar Pradesh RTI Second Appeal)
- Receipt Details: Who received the UPHRC order in the SP’s office?
- File Notings: Document the internal comments made regarding the order.
- Action Taken Report (ATR): The Human Rights Commission mandated specific steps, and we implemented actions to address the issues raised. (Uttar Pradesh RTI Second Appeal)
- Right to Reason: If the public functionaries are not taking action, what are the legal grounds for this inaction?
- Staff Responsibility: Who are the officials currently processing the order?
The questions aimed to ensure that the UPHRC order had not been “lost” or ignored.
The Response: Evasion and Deflection
The response from the Public Information Officer (PIO), Sri Omprakash Singh (ASP Operation), arrived on December 31, 2024. However, rather than addressing the five points regarding the processing of the UPHRC order, the PIO provided a report from a Sub-Inspector at the Vindhyachal Police Station. (Uttar Pradesh RTI Second Appeal)
The report claimed that the dispute was a mutual fight between neighbors where cross-cases (NCRs) had already been registered under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNSS). It further labeled the applicant as a “habitual” complainant and dismissed her claims of a fracture as medically unsupported.
The Core Conflict
The appellant argues that this response is a classic example of administrative deflection. Mahima Maurya did not ask for a justification of the police’s previous inaction; she asked for the official record of how the SP’s office handled a direct order from the Human Rights Commission. By providing a Sub-Inspector’s report instead of office notings and receipt details, the PIO effectively bypassed the transparency requirements of the RTI Act. (Uttar Pradesh RTI Second Appeal)
The Failure of the First Appeal
Displeased with the “incomplete and misleading” information, Mahima filed a First Appeal on January 12, 2025, before the First Appellate Authority (FAA), Somen Varma (SSP Mirzapur). (Uttar Pradesh RTI Second Appeal)
On February 1, 2025, the FAA upheld the PIO’s response, sparking a deeper concern: if the appellate authority justifies an “arbitrary report” from an investigation officer without ensuring the specific RTI queries receive answers, the department’s checks and balances fail. The appellant felt this endorsement of “insolence” toward the law.
The Second Appeal: A Cry for Accountability
On April 20, 2025, Mahima Maurya officially moved the Uttar Pradesh Information Commission (Appeal No. A-20250401121). Her prayer to the Chief Information Commissioner is poignant and sharp: (Uttar Pradesh RTI Second Appeal)
“The act is tantamount to anarchy in the working of the public authority… how can it be justified to withhold public services arbitrarily and promote lawlessness by making a mockery of the law of the land?
Key Arguments in the Second Appeal:
- Misdirection of Query: The PIO answered “what happened in the village” instead of “what happened to the UPHRC order in the SP office.”
- Violation of Section 19: Both the PIO and FAA failed to provide the “reasons” for their decisions, which the Supreme Court of India has consistently held as an indispensable part of a sound administrative system. (Uttar Pradesh RTI Second Appeal)
- Corruption Allegations: The appellant suggests that the lack of transparency is a cover for “rampant corruption” and an attempt to protect officers who ignored the Human Rights Commission’s mandate.
Why This Case Matters
This case is a microcosm of the challenges faced by rural citizens in India. When a citizen is caught between local police politics and the higher mandates of Human Rights Commissions, the RTI Act is often their only weapon. (Uttar Pradesh RTI Second Appeal)
If a Public Information Officer can substitute specific data (notings, names, dates) with a subjective police report, the RTI Act loses its “teeth.” The Commission now faces the task of determining whether the Mirzapur Police willfully suppressed the paper trail of the UPHRC order or simply failed to understand the nature of the request.
Conclusion: The Road Ahead
Mahima Maurya’s journey from a village in Mirzapur to the RTI Bhawan in Lucknow is a testament to the resilience of common citizens. She is not just asking for a police report; she is asking for the Right to Reason. (Uttar Pradesh RTI Second Appeal)
The decision of the Uttar Pradesh Information Commission will be a landmark for Mirzapur. It will either reinforce the idea that public officials are shielded by their departments, or it will send a clear message: No office, including the Superintendent of Police, is above the transparency required by the RTI Act.
As the hearing approaches, all eyes are on the Commission to see if they will curb this “initial stage of anarchy” and restore the citizen’s confidence in democratic values.
Here is the contact information for the public authorities involved in Mahima Maurya’s appeal, as detailed in the records:
1. Uttar Pradesh Information Commission (UPIC)(Uttar Pradesh RTI Second Appeal)
This is the body where the Second Appeal is currently pending.
- Registration Number: A-20250401121
- Address: 7/7A, RTI Bhawan, Vibhuti Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh, PIN-226010
- Phone Number: 0522-2724930
- Official Website: upsic.up.gov.in
- Email: webmaster-upic@up.gov.in
2. Mirzapur District Police (Home Department)(Uttar Pradesh RTI Second Appeal)
These are the respondents who handled the initial RTI and the First Appeal.
Public Information Officer (PIO) (Uttar Pradesh RTI Second Appeal)
- Name: Sri Omprakash Singh (ASP Operation)
- Mobile Number: 9454401105
- Email: asp-op.mi@up.gov.in
- Address: Office of the Superintendent of Police, Mirzapur, PIN-231001
First Appellate Authority (FAA) (Uttar Pradesh RTI Second Appeal)
- Name: Somen Varma (SSP/SP Mirzapur)
- Mobile Number: 9454400299
- Email: spmzr-up@nic.in
- Address: Office of the Superintendent of Police, Mirzapur, PIN-231001
3. Uttar Pradesh Human Rights Commission (UPHRC) (Uttar Pradesh RTI Second Appeal)
The authority that issued the original directive regarding Mahima Maurya’s complaint.
- Diary/Case No: 4672/IN/2024 (Case/File No: 14054/24/55/2024)
- Address: 1/183, Vineet Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh, PIN-226010
- Phone Number: 0522-2726742 / 2726743
- Email: uphrc@sancharnet.in
4. Online RTI Portal Details (Uttar Pradesh RTI Second Appeal)
For tracking status or filing future applications online:
- Portal Link: rtionline.up.gov.in
- Help Desk (Technical): 0522-7118629
- Help Desk Email: onlinertihelpline-up@gov.in
Summary of Key IDs (Uttar Pradesh RTI Second Appeal)
| Authority | ID / Reference Number |
| UP Information Commission | A-20250401121 |
| SP Mirzapur (Section 6-1) | SPMZR/R/2024/60208 |
| Transaction ID | SPMZRR20240000000256 |
| Human Rights Commission | 14054/24/55/2024 |
Would you like me to help you draft a formal letter of inquiry to the UP Information Commission to check the current status of your Second Appeal?
Facing a similar challenge? Share the details in the box below, and our team of experts will do their best to help.