Public Access to Online Hearing Data provides a valuable resource for individuals seeking transparency in legal proceedings. By making this data readily available, it ensures that the public can monitor court activities, track case progress, and understand judicial decisions. This access promotes accountability within the legal system and empowers citizens to participate in civic engagement. Additionally, it enhances the efficiency of legal research by allowing attorneys and researchers to gather insights from past hearings quickly. Ultimately, public access to this information fosters trust and awareness among the community, thereby strengthening the overall integrity of the judicial process.

The key takeaway from the blog post is that the following

the Uttar Pradesh Information Commission (UPIC), the very body meant to enforce transparency, is facing a crisis of accountability by denying access to its digital hearing records.

The summary of the core issues is as follows:

• Institutional Stonewalling: By claiming that hearing data is “unavailable in the desired form”, the Commission is using technical loopholes to avoid public scrutiny of its proceedings.
• The “Black Box” Problem: Without access to audio/video recordings (CDs) of hearings, appellants cannot verify the accuracy of the presiding officer’s statements or decisions, leading to a lack of authentication.
• Procedural Arbitrariness: The appeal highlights a disconnect between the official RTI Rules and the actual conduct of hearings—specifically regarding linguistic restrictions (Hindi-only) and arbitrary limits on written submissions.
• Systemic Risk: When a supreme transparency body provides incomplete or misleading information, it sets a dangerous precedent for all other public authorities, potentially rendering the RTI Act 2005 ineffective.

In essence, the case argues that for the RTI Act to succeed, the custodians of information must themselves be transparent, particularly regarding the digital data they generate during judicial processes.

Public Access to Online Hearing Data: When the Information Commission Withholds Information

The Right to Information (RTI) Act of 2005 aimed to bring transparency to the corridors of power, acting as the “sunlight” to disinfect them. It sought to shift India from a culture of secrecy to one of openness. However, a troubling paradox has emerged: many accuse the very institutions responsible for ensuring transparency—the State Information Commissions (SICs)—of stonewalling those who seek information. Additionally, there is a growing demand for public access to online hearing data, which could further enhance transparency and accountability within these institutions.

The case of Yogi M.P. Singh vs. The Uttar Pradesh Information Commission (UPIC) serves as a stark illustration of this systemic friction. When the custodian of the law appears to bypass the spirit of the law, the foundation of public trust begins to crumble.

---

The Core Dispute: Hearing Data and Digital Transparency (Public Access to Online Hearing Data)

At the heart of this appeal is a fundamental question: Who owns the record of a public hearing? The appellant sought the video/audio recording (CD) of a specific hearing held in Court S-9 of the UPIC on April 25, 2025.

The Public Information Officer (PIO) denied this request, stating that the information was “unavailable in the desired form.” This classic administrative defence often circumvents Section 7(9) of the RTI Act. While the Act allows a public authority to deny information if it would “disproportionately divert resources,” it explicitly mandates that the authority must provide information in the form in which the requester seeks it whenever possible.

If a hearing is conducted online or recorded digitally, that data exists. By refusing to provide the recording, the Commission creates a “black box” around its judicial proceedings, making it impossible for citizens to authenticate the quotes or conduct of presiding officers.

---

Technical Obscurity and Incomplete Disclosures

The appeal also highlights the struggle to understand the infrastructure of transparency. The appellant sought details regarding the agency managing the online hearings and the mechanism for data collection.

While the PIO identified the software as CATS-UPSIC, developed for e-filing, they failed to disclose the technical mechanism for data retention. This omission is critical. An appellant cannot determine whether the hearing data information commission has deleted or archived it without knowing the “preservation period” of that data. Providing the name of a software without explaining its data management protocol is, as the appellant notes, “incomplete and misleading”.

---

The Linguistic and Procedural Barrier (Public Access to Online Hearing Data)

One of the most concerning aspects of this case is the alleged “Hindi-only” mandate and the restriction on written submissions. The appellant challenged the legal basis for:

1. Compelling submissions only in Hindi.
2. The threat of dismissing objections based on page length.
3. Prohibiting verbal arguments between PIOs and appellants.

The PIO’s response—directing the seeker to the Uttar Pradesh Right to Information Rules 2015 (2019 Amendment)—was found wanting. A review of these rules often reveals no such restrictive clauses. When a presiding officer imposes arbitrary procedural hurdles that aren’t backed by the Act or the Rules, it crosses the line from adjudication to intimidation.

---

Why This Matters: The Domino Effect of Non-Cooperation (Public Access to Online Hearing Data)

The Information Commission is the “Second Appellate Authority”—the final court of appeal for an RTI seeker. If the Commission itself adopts a policy of denial, it sends a dangerous signal to every other public authority in the state. (Public Access to Online Hearing Data)

• Erosion of Public Confidence: If the “watchdog” refuses to be watched, citizens lose faith in the democratic process.
• Authentication Crisis: Proceedings must be record-based, not memory-based. Without access to hearing data, the “authentication of quotes” becomes impossible, leading to potential miscarriages of justice.
• Systemic Hostility: When PIOs provide vague or circular references (e.g., “see point 1”), they engage in a war of attrition, hoping the seeker will simply give up.

---

Legal Provisions and the Way Forward (Public Access to Online Hearing Data)

Section 4 of the RTI Act mandates proactive disclosure. In a digital age, this should naturally include the logs and recordings of public hearings. The argument that information is “not available in the sought form” holds little water when the technology used to conduct the hearing automatically generates a digital footprint.

The Role of the First Appellate Authority (FAA)

The current appeal rests with Shri Tejaskar Pandey (Deputy Secretary). The role of the FAA is not merely to rubber-stamp the PIO’s denial but to conduct a quasi-judicial review. To restore institutional integrity, the FAA must address the following: (Public Access to Online Hearing Data)

• The Preservation Policy: Clarifying exactly how long CATS-UPSIC stores hearing data.
• The CD Request: Directing the technical wing to extract the recording, as it is a matter of public record.
• Procedural Clarity: Producing the specific “office memos” or “circulars” that justify the restriction of arguments or page limits, or admitting that no such rules exist.

---

Conclusion: Sunlight is the Best Disinfectant

The Uttar Pradesh Information Commission stands at a crossroads. By providing the requested data, it can reaffirm its commitment to the RTI Act’s goal of a “formulated regime of right to information”. By continuing to deny it, it risks becoming a barrier rather than a bridge to justice.

Transparency is not a favour granted by the state; it is a right owned by the citizen. As this case progresses, it will serve as a litmus test for whether the digital evolution of our legal systems will be used to empower the public or to shield authority from scrutiny.

For your records and future follow-up on your RTI appeal (UPICM/A/2025/60063), here are the comprehensive contact details for the relevant public authorities and the digital portal links.

Primary Public Authority: Uttar Pradesh Information Commission (UPIC)

The UPIC is the central body involved in your current appeal. They are located in Lucknow and handle all state-level RTI second appeals and complaints. (Public Access to Online Hearing Data)

Designation	Name	Mobile / Phone	Email
First Appellate Authority (FAA)	Tejaskar Pandey	9454411791 / 9415021746	deputysecretary-upic@up.gov.in
Public Information Officer (PIO)	Mumtaz Ahmad	9151804317	jansu-section.upic@up.gov.in
UPIC General Helpline	Technical Desk	0522-7118629	online.rti.helpline.up@gov.in
Office Phone (Admin)	Main Office	0522-2724930	webmaster-upic@up.gov.in

---

Official Web Links (Public Access to Online Hearing Data)

These links are essential for tracking your status and accessing government rules:

• Official Website of UPIC: upsic.up.gov.in
  • Use this to check the “Cause List” or download final orders.
• UP RTI Online Portal: rtionline.up.gov.in
  • This is the portal where your appeal UPICM/A/2025/60063 is registered.
• Central Information Commission (CIC): cic.gov.in
  • Useful for comparing national standards for hearing recordings.

---

Address for Correspondence (Public Access to Online Hearing Data)

If you need to send physical copies of your rejoinder or supporting documents (like the 2019 Amendment you mentioned), use the following address:

The First Appellate Authority / Deputy Secretary

Uttar Pradesh Information Commission,

7/7A, RTI Bhawan, Vibhuti Khand,

Gomti Nagar, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh – 226010

---

Key Application Summary (Public Access to Online Hearing Data)

• RTI Registration No: UPICM/R/2025/60195 (Filed: 26/04/2025)
• Appeal Registration No: UPICM/A/2025/60063 (Filed: 08/05/2025)
• Status: First Appeal Received (Pending review as of 08/05/2025)

Would you like me to help you draft a formal email to Mr Tejaskar Pandey to request an urgent hearing date for this appeal?