To begin with, explore the implications of Incomplete RTI Responses and their impact on transparency in governance and public information access. Indeed, inadequate responses to Right to Information (RTI) requests can severely undermine the principles of accountability and transparency that such legislation aims to uphold. When public authorities fail to provide complete information, it not only frustrates citizens seeking clarity but also fosters an environment of distrust between the government and the public. As a result, this lack of transparency can hinder civic participation, since individuals may feel disillusioned or powerless in holding authorities accountable. Furthermore, incomplete RTI responses can contribute to systemic inefficiencies and corruption, obscuring critical data that can inform policy decisions. Ultimately, ensuring comprehensive and timely responses is fundamental to enhancing public trust and promoting a more informed society.

Incomplete RTI Responses: Key Takeaways from the RTI Second Appeal

Specifically, this case of Mahima Maurya vs. PIO Mirzapur highlights the critical failures in transparency and legal accountability that so often accompany incomplete RTI responses.

---

## 1. Incomplete RTI Responses: Denial of “Right to Reason”

Notably, a central theme of this dispute is the PIO’s silence on why officials never conducted a medical X-ray for a broken finger.

• Takeaway: Under administrative law, providing reasons for an action (or inaction) is a fundamental requirement; therefore, the Commission can interpret this incomplete RTI response as malafide intent or an attempt to protect the accused.

## 2. Transparency of Public Officials

Also, in this incomplete RTI response, the PIO withheld the name and posting history of the Investigating Officer (IO).

• Takeaway: Moreover, information regarding the identity and official posting of a police officer is not personal information under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act; it is public data. Therefore, citizens have a right to know who is handling their legal case.

## 3. Incomplete RTI Responses and Accountability in Criminal Investigations

Similarly, the appeal highlights a total lack of information regarding the status and timeline of NCR No. 0104/2024.

• Takeaway: If an investigation is ongoing, the PIO must state the status; otherwise, once it is complete, the PIO must share the report unless it strictly endangers a source or the life of an individual. Thus, blanket denials are legally unsustainable at the Second Appeal stage.

## 4. Burden on the Public Exchequer

Additionally, on top of the incomplete RTI response itself, the appellant specifically requested communication via email to save costs.

• Takeaway: Consequently, this aligns with Section 7(6) of the RTI Act and general government digital initiatives. In other words, it emphasizes that administrative delays and physical paper trails unnecessarily drain public funds and cause “extra burden” on the taxpayer.

## 5. Potential Legal Consequences for the PIO

Since the matter is now at the Uttar Pradesh Information Commission (Hearing Court S-9):

• Takeaway: If the Commission finds that the PIO “knowingly” withheld or “misleadingly” provided this incomplete RTI response, then the PIO faces a personal penalty of ₹250 per day.

Incomplete RTI Responses: When the PIO Fails the Information Seeker

In fact, in a robust democracy, the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005 serves as the ultimate tool for accountability. However, a recent Second Appeal that the appellant filed before the Uttar Pradesh Information Commission (Appeal No. A-20250101221) reveals a troubling trend: police authorities are giving incomplete and misleading information to shield administrative lapses.

The Core Issue: How Incomplete RTI Responses Obstruct Justice

Specifically, the appellant, Mahima Maurya, sought five specific points of information regarding NCR No. 0104/2024. While the RTI Act mandates that authorities provide information unless it falls under specific exemptions (Section 8), the incomplete RTI response from the PIO in Mirzapur nonetheless suggests a deliberate attempt to withhold critical data.

1. Incomplete RTI Response: Identity of the Investigating Officer (IO)

First, the PIO failed to provide the name and posting details of the officer investigating the NCR.

• Legal Standing: Indeed, the name and designation of a public servant performing official duties is public information. As a result, withholding this prevents the appellant from holding the specific officer accountable for any bias or delay.

2. The “Right to Reason” and Medical Negligence

Second, a critical point of contention is the failure to provide a reason for not conducting an X-ray on the appellant’s broken finger.

• Administrative Failure: As noted in the appeal, the “Right to Reason” is an essential principle of natural justice. Consequently, by failing to explain why officials bypassed medical protocols, the PIO reinforces the appellant’s suspicion of a biased investigation intended to favor the offenders.

3. Incomplete RTI Response: Missing Investigation Reports

Finally, although police registered the NCR in September 2024, the PIO has still not provided the investigation report or a timeline for its completion — yet another incomplete RTI response in this case.

• The Impact: Consequently, without the investigation report, this incomplete RTI response leaves the victim in the dark regarding the progress of their case, effectively stalling their pursuit of legal remedies in court.

---

The Path Forward: Correcting the Incomplete RTI Response at the State Commission

Therefore, the matter is now before Mrs. Shakuntala Gautam at the Uttar Pradesh Information Commission. This stage is crucial because, in cases of an incomplete RTI response, the Commission has the power to:

• First, direct the PIO to provide the requested information immediately.
• Second, impose Penalties under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act (₹250 per day up to ₹25,000) for the delay and denial of information.
• Finally, recommend Disciplinary Action against the officer for providing misleading data.

Conclusion: A Call for Accountability

Ultimately, incomplete RTI responses like this one erode the very accountability the Act aims to protect. In fact, the appellant’s plea, “Please don’t waste public money… communicate on email,” reflects a modern, civic-minded approach to governance. Meanwhile, when the police department—the very entity meant to uphold the law—withholds information, it undermines public trust. In short, this case serves as a reminder that the RTI is not just about “data”; it is about the right to justice.

Based on the official records and your specific appeal details, here are the application identifiers and contact details for the public authorities involved in your case.

## Case Identifiers

• Appeal Registration Number: A-20250101221
• Hearing Court: Court No. S-9
• Presiding Officer: Mrs. Shakuntala Gautam (State Information Commissioner)
• Hearing Date: 29th April 2025

---

## 1. Uttar Pradesh Information Commission (UPIC)

In short, this is the appellate body overseeing your Second Appeal. (Incomplete RTI Responses)

Detail	Information
Website	upsic.up.gov.in
Email (Court S-9)	hearingcourts9.upic@up.gov.in
General Email	webmaster-upic@up.gov.in
Office Address	7/7A, RTI Bhawan, Vibhuti Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow, UP
Contact Number	0522-2724930
Nodal Officer	Shri Tejaskar Pandey (Deputy Secretary)

## 2. Mirzapur Police Administration (Incomplete RTI Responses)

Below, then, are the respondents (Public Authorities) responsible for providing the information regarding the NCR.

• Superintendent of Police (SP), Mirzapur
  • Email: spmzr-up@nic.in
  • CUG Mobile: +91-9454400299
• Additional SP (Operation), Mirzapur
  • Email: asp-op.mi@up.gov.in
  • CUG Mobile: +91-9454401105
• DIG Vindhyachal Range
  • Email: digrmir@nic.in
  • CUG Mobile: +91-9454400215

---

## 3. Online Tracking & Portals (Incomplete RTI Responses)

Meanwhile, you can monitor the status of your applications or file future requests through these official links:

• UP RTI Online Portal: rtionline.up.gov.in
• UPIC Status Tracking: rtionlinecourt.up.gov.in/request/status.php
• UP Police RTI Disclosure: uppolice.gov.in

## Important Note for the Appellant

Since the hearing date is April 29, 2025, be sure to send any written submissions or evidence of the “misleading information” to hearingcourts9.upic@up.gov.in at least 48 hours before the hearing.