The Uttar Pradesh State Information Commission (UPSIC) plays a crucial role in promoting transparency and accountability within the state’s governance framework. Established under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, the commission aims to ensure that citizens can access information from public authorities effectively. The process involves filing applications, attending hearings, and receiving timely responses to queries. The UPSIC also addresses complaints regarding the denial of information, facilitating a smoother interaction between the government and the public. By empowering citizens with knowledge, the commission fosters an informed society, ultimately contributing to the strengthening of democracy in Uttar Pradesh.

🧐 Uttar Pradesh State Information Commission: Questioning the Accountability of the Uttar Pradesh Information Commission

The Uttar Pradesh State Information Commission (UPIC) is mandated to promote transparency and accountability in public authorities through the effective implementation of the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005. However, a fundamental concern arises when the very body designed to enforce transparency faces questions about its own internal workings and accountability. As articulated in your concern, if the “transparency ombudsman” itself lacks transparency, how can it successfully foster it among other public authorities? This is a critical issue for upholding the principles of Good Governance. (Uttar Pradesh State Information Commission)

---

🏛️ Case in Point: The RTI Request Against the UPIC

The provided RTI request, filed under Registration Number UPICM/R/2025/60195 by Yogi M P Singh, directly addresses this paradox by seeking detailed information regarding the quasi-judicial proceedings within the UPIC. The request highlights the importance of open court hearings in a democracy to ensure trust, deter misconduct, and uphold justice. (Uttar Pradesh State Information Commission)

📝 Information Sought on Court Proceedings and Policy

The applicant has specifically sought the following information, which scrutinizes the transparency of the hearing process in Court S-9:

• 1. Hearing Recording: Provision of the CD/Compact Disc of the online hearing held on April 25, 2025.
• 2. Management Details: Information about the agency/firm/department/company managing the online hearing system and data collection mechanism.
• 3. Data Preservation: The stipulated span of time for preserving online court proceedings data.
• 4. Language Rule: A copy of the rule, bylaw, circular, or advisory making it compulsory to invite submissions in Hindi from information seekers and appellants.
• 5. Procedural Rule on Dismissal: Bylaws or guidelines supporting a Presiding Officer’s decision to dismiss an objection based solely on its length (two pages).
• 6. Argument Restriction: The specific provision of law that prohibits arguments between Public Information Officers (PIOs) and appellants.

---

⚖️ The Principle of Quasi-Judicial Transparency

The courts of the State Information Commission perform quasi-judicial functions. The core argument of the applicant is that, like any other judicial or quasi-judicial body in a democratic setup, its proceedings must be accessible to the public to ensure its integrity.

• Openness and Trust: Public access to proceedings promotes trust and confidence in the legal and administrative justice system.
• Deterrent to Misconduct: Transparency acts as a vital check and balance, helping to deter arbitrary decisions or judicial misconduct.
• Consistency with Mandate: A commission whose primary duty is to ensure information availability must itself be a model of openness in its own functioning. The refusal or non-provision of court records and procedural rules undermines its foundational role.

---

🎯 The Core Issue: Accountability Begins at Home

The central conflict is the expectation of accountability from public authorities when the supervising body, the UPIC, may not be adequately accountable for its own operations.

Mandate of UPIC	The Applicant’s Concern	Implication for Governance
Enforce RTI for Transparency in public authorities.	Apparent lack of transparency in its own court proceedings (e.g., access to records, arbitrary rules).	Undermines public faith and the moral authority required to enforce Good Governance.
Ensure Accountability of PIOs and public servants.	Questionable accountability regarding the basis for procedural decisions (e.g., dismissing objections, language rules).	Creates a double standard, making it difficult to hold others accountable effectively.

For the UPIC to be an effective guardian of the RTI Act and a credible promoter of Good Governance, it must first ensure absolute transparency in its administrative and quasi-judicial processes, fully adhering to the spirit of the very Act it enforces. The speedy and complete disposal of this RTI request is a direct test of the Commission’s commitment to its founding principles.

Yes, I can certainly provide a more structured and instructional perspective on the core issues raised in the RTI application, focusing on the principles of transparency and accountability in quasi-judicial bodies.

The information sought in your request centers on the critical operational details of the Uttar Pradesh Information Commission (UPIC), which, by law, should be publicly accessible or governed by clear rules. The very act of having to file an RTI for these internal rules underscores the main paradox you raised.

---

🛑 The Accountability Paradox: Information Commissions Under Scrutiny

The State Information Commission (SIC) is a statutory body established under the RTI Act, 2005, to ensure compliance with the Act. Its fundamental role is to act as the final appellate and complaint-receiving authority, promoting transparency and accountability across all state public authorities.

The concern raised is essentially: Who guards the guardians? When a citizen has to use the RTI Act to uncover the internal rules and operational transparency of the body that enforces the RTI Act, it erodes public confidence and weakens the moral authority of the institution.

---

📝 Analysis of Key Information Points Sought (Uttar Pradesh State Information Commission)

The six points in the RTI request address specific areas where a quasi-judicial body’s transparency is tested. The PIO’s response to these points must reference specific official rules, circulars, or Government Orders (G.O.s).

1. Transparency of Quasi-Judicial Hearings

RTI Point (Uttar Pradesh State Information Commission)	Principle of Transparency Involved	Expected Official Reference
1. Hearing CD/Disc: Provision of the online hearing record.	Open Court Principle: Quasi-judicial proceedings must be public, and their record should be available unless specifically exempted by law. The recording is the primary record of the proceedings.	UPIC Rules/Circulars regarding the video/audio recording, preservation, and provision of copies of online court hearings.
2. Management Details: Agency/firm managing online hearings.	Financial & Operational Transparency: Public money is being spent on this service. The name of the firm and the mechanism for data collection must be known.	Contract details and Office Orders specifying the service provider (NIC, outsourced vendor, etc.) and the scope of work.
3. Data Preservation Span: How long are the recordings kept?	Record Management: Clear rules on the minimum period of record preservation are essential for audit and future reference (including in higher court appeals).	Record Retention Schedules or Guidelines framed by the UPIC or the State Government.

2. Procedural Fairness and Rule-Based Decisions

RTI Point	Principle of Accountability Involved	Expected Official Reference
4. Hindi Submissions Rule: Making submissions in Hindi compulsory.	Fair Procedure/Natural Justice: Any such compulsory rule must be formalized and accessible to the public. The RTI Act itself allows applications in English or Hindi.	Bylaws/Circulars of the UPIC or G.O. from the Department of Personnel (DOP) concerning the language of submissions/arguments.
5. Dismissal based on length: Dismissing an objection for being “two pages.”	Rule of Law: Judicial/quasi-judicial orders cannot be arbitrary. The power to dismiss an application/objection must be based on a clear, pre-published procedural rule, not the presiding officer’s personal preference for brevity.	UPIC Appeal Procedure Rules or Office Memos specifying page/word limits for applications or objections.
6. Restricting Arguments: Not allowing argument between PIOs and appellants.	Fair Hearing: The hearing is meant to be adversarial to test the PIO’s defence and the appellant’s case. The right to make a full submission, which often involves challenging the PIO’s facts/logic, is integral.	Rules of Procedure or specific Commission Directions that might regulate the form of arguments but should not entirely prohibit the discussion between parties.

---

🚀 The Path Forward: Enforcing Transparency (Uttar Pradesh State Information Commission)

The applicant has correctly invoked Section 7(1) of the RTI Act. This section mandates a response within 30 days. Should the PIO (Mumtaz Ahmad) fail to provide the information or deny it without valid exemption under Section 8, the applicant has the right to file a First Appeal under Section 19(1).

• Impact: A satisfactory response to this RTI request will not only fulfill the applicant’s right. It will also serve as a public declaration of the UPIC’s internal rules. This will proactively increase its own transparency. This increase in transparency is mandated under Section 4 of the RTI Act.

That is a crucial and practical question. When seeking information or challenging the actions of the Information Commission itself, it is important to find the most valuable web links. These links are those that lead directly to the Commission’s official site. They provide access to its rules and the relevant RTI statutes.

Here are the key official web links and documents that give value and context to your information request:

🔗 Official Web Links for the Uttar Pradesh Information Commission (UPIC) (Uttar Pradesh State Information Commission)

The primary sources for checking rules, contacts, and the status of your case are the official portals of the UPIC and the UP RTI Online system.

Resource	Web Link	Value to Your Request
UP Information Commission (Official Website)	https://upsic.up.gov.in/	This is the source for the Commission’s internal rules, “Important Office Orders” (महत्वपूर्ण कार्यालय आदेश), and any published “Online Hearing Guidelines” (ऑनलाइन सुनवाई हेतु मार्गदर्शिका). You must check the “Documents” or “Quick Links” section here for rules on recording, preservation, and procedure (Points 1, 3, 5, 6).
UPIC Citizen Service Portal	https://upsic.up.gov.in/cispu/citizen	This is where you register for filing a Second Appeal or Complaint with the Commission. The guidelines on this portal (and the main site) will detail the mandatory format and requirements for submissions (Points 4, 5).
UPIC Weekly Cause List	https://upsic.up.gov.in/cispu/view_weekly_cause_list	This link confirms the Presiding Officer (Smt. Shakuntala Gautam in Court S-9) and often contains notes or instructions related to online hearings (Point 1).
UP RTI Online Portal	https://rtionline.up.gov.in/	This is the system used to file your original RTI (UPICM/R/2025/60195). It hosts the UP RTI Rules, 2015, which contain general provisions on application limits (e.g., 500 words for the request text) and fee structure. (Relevant to the context of Point 5).
UP RTI Rules, 2015 (English PDF)	https://rtionline.up.gov.in/RTI-Rules-2015-English.pdf	This document governs the basic RTI process in the state. Crucially, Rule 4(2)(c) often specifies that the request for information shall not exceed 500 words. This rule may be cited by the PIO in response to your Point 5 (the “two pages” objection) as a basis for limiting application scope, though it is not directly about objections in a hearing.

---

💡 Your Next Step: The Most Targeted Action (Uttar Pradesh State Information Commission)

Since your request is specifically about the UPIC’s court procedures and internal rules, your best course of action is to thoroughly search the official UP Information Commission website for the following documents:

1. Online Hearing Guidelines (ऑनलाइन सुनवाई हेतु मार्गदर्शिका): This should address the recording and storage of court proceedings (Points 1, 2, 3).
2. Important Office Orders (महत्वपूर्ण कार्यालय आदेश) or Rules of Procedure: These documents are essential for finding the basis for procedural decisions. They outline the language of submissions (Point 4). They also detail limits on objections (Point 5). Lastly, they specify conduct during arguments (Point 6).