The blog post highlights a significant breakdown in the transparency framework within the Uttar Pradesh State Information Commission (UPSIC). Here are the key takeaways from the analysis:

1. The “Privacy” Shield (Misuse of Section 8(1)(j))

The most critical takeaway is the Commission’s misinterpretation of the personal information exemption. The PIO is using Section 8(1)(j) as a blanket tool to hide administrative actions.

The Flaw: Official decisions made by Scrutinizers and Research Officers are public acts, not private matters.
The Conflict: By labeling the rejection of an appeal as “personal information,” the Commission is attempting to exempt itself from the “Right to Reason,” which is a mandatory requirement for any quasi-judicial body.

2. Legal Superiority of the RTI Act 2005

There is a clear conflict between the UP RTI Rules 2015 and the Central RTI Act 2005.

The Commission is using state-level rules (Section 6 of the UP Rules) to restrict who can file an RTI.
Key Principle: State rules cannot override the Central Act. Any rule that diminishes the rights granted by the 2005 Act is legally “without prejudice” and should be challenged as ultra vires (beyond legal authority).

3. Lack of Accountability in the “Scrutiny” Process

The post identifies a “black box” in the Commission’s workflow:

The Gatekeeper Problem: “Scrutinizers” are rejecting appeals before they reach the Commissioners, often without providing a reasoned order (a “Speaking Order”).
Anonymity: The Commission’s refusal to provide the names and designations of these Scrutinizers creates an environment of administrative tyranny where officials can make arbitrary decisions without fear of personal accountability.

4. Breach of Natural Justice

The “Right to Reason” is a cornerstone of the Indian judicial system.

The Commission, acting in a quasi-judicial capacity, is legally obligated to explain why an appeal was rejected.
The disposal of Sadhana Tiwari’s case without a transparent explanation is a violation of the principles of natural justice and the specific mandates of Section 7(8) of the RTI Act.

Summary for the Information Seeker

The core issue is procedural arbitrariness. The Commission is using a combination of “personal information” claims and restrictive state rules to avoid answering questions about its own internal irregularities.

Arbitrariness at the Helm: Decoding the Transparency Crisis in the Uttar Pradesh Information Commission

The Right to Information (RTI) Act of 2005 was envisioned as the “sunlight” that would disinfect the corridors of power. However, when the very institution mandated to enforce transparency—the State Information Commission (SIC)—is accused of procedural irregularities and contradictory legal interpretations, the democratic fabric is under threat.

The case of Sadhana Tiwari versus the Superintendent of Police, Mirzapur, and the subsequent RTI applications filed by activist Yogi M. P. Singh, highlights a troubling trend: the use of legal technicalities to shield administrative inefficiency.

1. The Core Dispute: A Tug-of-War Between Rules and Acts

At the heart of this matter lies a fundamental legal contradiction. The Research Officer and the Public Information Officer (PIO) of the UP Information Commission have reportedly denied information by citing Section 6 of the Uttar Pradesh RTI Rules 2015.

The PIO’s argument hinges on the claim that one individual cannot seek information on behalf of another. However, this interpretation appears to clash with the parent Act. Under Section 6(1) of the RTI Act 2005, any citizen is empowered to make a request for information. The Act does not explicitly bar a representative from assisting or filing on behalf of another, provided the citizenship criteria are met.

The “Without Prejudice” Conflict

Legally, any rule made by a state government (like the UP RTI Rules 2015) must be “without prejudice” to the provisions of the Central Act. This means:

State rules must complement, not contradict, the RTI Act 2005.
If a state rule restricts a right granted by the Central Act, the Central Act prevails.
Denying information based on state-level procedural hurdles is often viewed by legal experts as ultra vires (beyond legal authority).

2. The Timeline of Rejection: Procedural Tyranny?

The chronology of Sadhana Tiwari’s case (Registration Number: SPMZR/R/2024/60190) paints a picture of a bureaucratic maze:

09/10/2024: Original RTI filed.
21/02/2025: Request marked as “Disposed Of.”
08/03/2025: Second Appeal submitted.
The Rejection: The appeal was rejected by a “Scrutinizer” and forwarded to a Research Officer.

The appellant argues that the intervals for filing appeals—calculated as 43 days for the first appeal and 150 days for the second appeal—were strictly followed. Yet, the Scrutinizer’s rejection without a substantive “speaking order” (a reasoned decision) suggests a move toward administrative tyranny.

3. The Contradiction: Section 8(1)(j) vs. Public Interest

The PIO’s response to Yogi M. P. Singh’s query (Registration Number: UPICM/R/2025/60156) cited Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. This section exempts “personal information” which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of privacy.

Why this is a Contradiction:

Public Activity: The working of the Information Commission is, by definition, a public activity. Information regarding why a second appeal was rejected is a matter of public record and judicial process.
Quasi-Judicial Nature: The State Information Commission functions as a quasi-judicial body. The “Right to Reason” is a pillar of natural justice. Denying the reason for a rejection under the guise of “privacy” contradicts the Commission’s primary duty to ensure accountability.

4. Specific Demands for Accountability

The current appeal filed to First Appellate Authority (FAA) Tejaskar Pandey seeks three critical points of clarity:

Legal Validity of Amendments: A copy of Section 19(3) of the RTI Act as applied by the Commission, specifying if any competent authority has amended the 90-day filing window or the scrutiny process.
Transparency of Personnel: The names and posting details of the “Scrutinizers” who hold the power to dismiss appeals before they reach a Commissioner.
The Right to Reason: A formal statement of reasons for the rejection of Sadhana Tiwari’s appeal.

5. The Role of the Scrutinizer: Gatekeeper or Barrier?

The introduction of “Scrutinizers” and “Research Officers” in the appeal process has become a point of contention. While intended to filter non-compliant applications, these roles must not become “super-judges” who dismiss cases on whim.

If a Scrutinizer rejects an appeal, they are acting on behalf of a public authority. Under the RTI Act, they are not exempt from transparency. The refusal to provide their names or the specific logic behind their decisions creates a “black box” where justice goes to die.

6. Conclusion: A Call for Reform

The situation in the Uttar Pradesh State Information Commission is a litmus test for the RTI movement in India. If the custodians of transparency use the law to hide their own “irregularities and corruption,” the common citizen is left defenseless.

The “arbitrariness” mentioned by the appellant isn’t just a legal complaint; it is a cry for the restoration of the Rule of Law. Information should be the rule, and secrecy the exception. When the exception becomes the tool for disposing of valid appeals, the Commission ceases to be a facilitator of rights and becomes a fortress of bureaucracy.

What Can You Do?

If you are facing similar hurdles with the SIC, it is vital to document every contradiction. The “without prejudice” clause is your strongest ally in ensuring that state rules do not swallow your fundamental right to know.

In the context of your case against the Uttar Pradesh Information Commission, the misinterpretation of Section 8(1)(j) by the Public Information Officer (PIO) is not just a technical error—it is a strategic barrier to accountability.

The following analysis focuses specifically on how the Commission’s PIO and Research Officer have misapplied this clause to shield the administrative process from public scrutiny.

1. The Anatomy of Section 8(1)(j) Misinterpretation

The PIO’s reply to Registration No. UPICM/R/2025/60156 claims that information regarding the rejection of Sadhana Tiwari’s appeal is “personal” and has no “relationship to any public activity.” This is a fundamental legal fallacy for three reasons:

A. Public Activity vs. Private Life

The Supreme Court has clarified in multiple judgments (e.g., Subhash Chandra Agarwal vs. CPIO) that while medical records or home addresses are personal, the official actions, orders, and reasoning of public officers are inherently public activities.

The Error: The Scrutinizer and Research Officer are acting in their official capacity as part of a statutory body. Their decision to reject a second appeal is a public record, not a private secret.

B. The Proviso: The “Parliament Test”

The most significant part of Section 8(1)(j) is the mandatory proviso:

“Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.

The Argument: Could the UP State Information Commission refuse to tell the State Legislature why it rejected a citizen’s appeal? No. Therefore, under the law, it cannot deny that same information to the citizen.

2. Contradiction: Section 8(1)(j) vs. Quasi-Judicial Transparency

The Information Commission is a quasi-judicial body. In any judicial or quasi-judicial proceeding, the “Right to Reason” is an indispensable part of the law.

The PIO’s Claim (Section 8(1)(j))	The Legal Reality
Disclosure would cause “unwarranted invasion of privacy.”	Transparency in court/commission proceedings is a Public Interest.
The information relates to an individual (Sadhana Tiwari).	The appeal status and reasons for rejection are part of the Commission’s performance and accountability.
Denial is based on “Research Officer’s Remarks.”	Administrative remarks leading to a legal rejection must be provided as a Speaking Order.

3. The Shift: The DPDP Act 2023 Complication

It is important to note that the Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act, 2023 recently amended Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act to remove the “Public Interest” override in many cases.

The Trap: Public authorities are now using this amendment as a “blanket ban” on any information that mentions a name.
The Correction: Even with the DPDP amendment, the official conduct of a Scrutinizer or a Research Officer in the discharge of their statutory duty remains a matter of public record. Denying the reason for a rejection under Section 8(1)(j) is a “malafide” (bad faith) exercise of power.

4. Why This Reflects “Arbitrariness and Tyranny”

You asked if this reflects arbitrariness. The answer lies in the Contradiction of Logic:

Stage 1: They use UP RTI Rules 2015 (Section 6) to say a representative cannot file for another person.
Stage 2: They use RTI Act 2005 (Section 8(1)(j)) to say the details of the rejection are “personal.

This “cherry-picking” of rules creates a Catch-22 where the citizen is blocked regardless of which law is applied. By refusing to name the Scrutinizer (Point 2 of your RTI) and refusing the copy of the law (Point 1), the Commission is effectively operating as a “Secret Society” rather than a transparency regulator.

Suggested Next Step for your First Appeal

In your hearing with FAA Tejaskar Pandey, you should specifically challenge the PIO to:

Demonstrate the “Parliament Test”: Ask the PIO to state in writing that the information requested would also be denied to the UP State Legislature.
Demand a “Speaking Order”: Under Section 7(8) of the RTI Act, if a PIO rejects a request, they must provide the reasons for such rejection, not just a bare quote of the section.

To assist you in your pursuit of accountability, here are the validated contact details for the public authorities involved in the cases of Sadhana Tiwari and Yogi M. P. Singh.

1. Uttar Pradesh State Information Commission (UPSIC)

This is the primary authority regarding the “Scrutinizer” rejection and the interpretation of Section 8(1)(j).

Designation	Name	Mobile/Phone	Email ID
First Appellate Authority (FAA)	Sh. Tejaskar Pandey	9454411791 / 9415021746	deputysecretary-upic@up.gov.in
Public Information Officer (PIO)	Sh. Mumtaz Ahmad	9151804317	jansu-section.upic@up.gov.in
Registrar	Sh. Sandeep Gupta	0522-2724930	webmaster-upic@up.gov.in
Secretary	Sh. Kumar Prashant	0522-2724930	sec-upic@up.gov.in

Office Address: 7/7A, RTI Bhawan, Vibhuti Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh – 226010.
Official Website: https://upsic.up.gov.in

2. Superintendent of Police (SP) Office, Mirzapur

This is the office where the original RTI (Registration No. SPMZR/R/2024/60190) was filed and subsequently disposed of on 21/02/2025.

Designation	Name	Mobile (CUG)	Email ID
Superintendent of Police (SP)	Sh. Somen Barma (IPS)	9454400299	spmzr-up@nic.in
Addl. SP (City)	Sh. Nitesh Singh	9454401104	asp-city.mi@up.gov.in
CO City (Mirzapur)	Sh. Vivek Jawla	9454401590	co-city.mi@up.gov.in

Office Address: SP Office, Collectorate Compound, Mirzapur, Uttar Pradesh – 231001.
District Police Web Link: https://uppolice.gov.in/hi/Officials?mirzapur

3. RTI Portals & Technical Support

If you are facing technical issues with the status updates or the Scrutinizer’s remarks on the online portal:

UP RTI Online Portal: https://rtionline.up.gov.in
Helpline Phone: 0522-7118629
Helpline Email: onlinertihelpline.up@gov.in

Important Application IDs for Reference:

Sadhana Tiwari vs. SP Mirzapur: SPMZR/R/2024/60190 (Filed: 09/10/2024)
Yogi M P Singh vs. UPIC: UPICM/R/2025/60156 (Filed: 06/04/2025)
First Appeal (Yogi M P Singh): UPICM/A/2025/60058 (Filed: 05/05/2025)

Note on Timeline: Since you are challenging the “arbitrariness” of the Scrutinizer, ensure that your correspondence with Tejaskar Pandey (FAA) specifically mentions that the 90-day window for the second appeal is a statutory right under Section 19(3), and internal “scrutiny rules” cannot extinguish this legal right.