RTI Rejection: Issues in UPIC
The Right to Information (RTI) has been a crucial tool for citizens to hold public authorities accountable and ensure transparency. However, the implementation of RTI in the context of UPIC often faces significant hurdles. Common issues include the rejection of applications without valid reasons, lack of awareness among citizens regarding their rights, and insufficient training of officials who handle these requests. Additionally, bureaucratic hurdles and delays in responses can undermine public confidence in the system. To improve the effectiveness of RTI, it is essential to address these challenges and foster a culture of openness and responsiveness in UPIC.

Here are the key takeaways:

• Weaponisation of Legal Pretexts: The Public Information Officer (PIO) is using Rule 4(2)(b)(iii) to claim that requests for factual, existing records (such as names of staff and land maps) are “hypothetical questions. This is a deliberate misinterpretation of the law to avoid disclosure. (RTI Rejection: Issues in UPIC)
• Lack of Service Accountability: Despite the applicant paying a Rs. 1,000 fee under Section 24 of the Revenue Code 2006, the government has failed to provide the “work product” (the measurement/map). This highlights a gap where the state accepts payment but refuses to show proof of service.
• Cover-up of Administrative Malpractice: The denial of information links to a larger grievance involving the SDM Sadar and local police. By withholding the Paimise (measurement) documents, the administration allegedly shields itself from accusations of contempt of court and illegal road construction.
• Systemic Institutional Decay: The post suggests that the Uttar Pradesh Information Commission is not fulfilling its oversight role. When second appeals do not result in penalties for PIOs, it encourages a culture of “rampant corruption” and impunity among local officials.
• Violation of the Spirit of the 2005 Act: “Arbitrary rejections” defeat the primary goal of the RTI Act—to promote transparency. Instead of acting as a bridge between the state and the citizen, the PIO acts as a gatekeeper for administrative secrecy.

This blog post explores the systemic failure of transparency mechanisms within the Uttar Pradesh administration, specifically focusing on the misuse of procedural rules to deny citizens their right to information regarding land governance. (RTI Rejection: Issues in UPIC)

---

The Mirage of Transparency: How Arbitrary RTI Rejections Fuel Corruption in Uttar Pradesh

The Right to Information (RTI) Act of 2005 aimed to serve as the “sunlight” that would disinfect the corridors of power. It sought to replace the colonial culture of secrecy with a democratic culture of accountability. However, Public Information Officers (PIOs) in the District Magistrate’s Office in Mirzapur are systematically extinguishing that light by using legal jargon as a shield to protect administrative inefficiency and potential corruption.

The case of Yogi M. P. Singh (Registration No: DMOMR/R/2024/60082) serves as a chilling case study that illustrates how the authorities are murdering the spirit of the RTI Act by arbitrarily rejecting information requests.

The Core Dispute: Paid Services Without Accountability

The crux of this issue lies in a land boundary dispute (Paimise) under Section 24 of the Revenue Code 2006. The applicant, who was acting on behalf of a wronged citizen, paid the government Rs. 1,000 for a specific service: measuring and fixing land boundaries.

When a citizen pays a fee for a government service, they receive the “work product” of that service, which includes the names of the officials who conducted the survey, the resulting map, and the formal orders issued. However, when someone sought these specific, record-based details via RTI, Mr Hemant Kumar (Tehsildar), the PIO, rejected the application on May 16, 2025.

The Weaponisation of “Hypothetical Questions”

The reason cited for rejection was Rule 4(2)(b)(iii), which claimed that the information sought involved “answering hypothetical questions.”

To call these questions “hypothetical” is not just a legal error; it is a logical absurdity.

• Is a name a hypothesis? Asking for the name and designation of the staff who decided the boundary (Point 1) is a request for a factual record.
• Is a map a hypothesis? A map created after a measurement (Point 2) serves as a physical or digital document that either exists or does not exist.
• Is a treasury challan a hypothesis? The applicant has provided proof of payment. Asking what services the payment was for (Point 4) requests an account of official duty.

By labelling these requests as “hypothetical”, the PIO effectively claims that the Tehsil’s actions—the measurements, the maps, and the orders—never actually occurred or that the government does not need to maintain records of services for which it charges fees.

RTI Rejection: Issues in UPIC: A Breakdown of the Rule of Law

When a PIO arbitrarily rejects an RTI, they aren’t just denying a piece of paper; they are facilitating a wider landscape of corruption. In this specific case, it is alleged that the Paimise (measurement) was delayed or manipulated to allow the construction of a road despite a pending revenue case.

If the Sub-Divisional Magistrate (SDM) Sadar and the Jigna Police monitored construction on disputed land while ignoring the applicant’s legal rights, the refusal to provide RTI documents becomes a tool for covering up administrative contempt of court.

The Failure of the Second Appeal Mechanism

The author rightly points out that this behaviour persists even after the involvement of the Uttar Pradesh Information Commission. When the highest oversight body fails to penalise PIOs for blatant and frivolous rejections, it creates a culture of impunity.

PIOs no longer fear the ₹250-per-day penalty or disciplinary action. Instead, they operate under the assumption that the Information Commission will either ignore the delay or accept any flimsy excuse for non-disclosure. This implies a “rampant corruption” that is not just individual but structural.

---

Analysis of the Denied Information Points

Point	Information Sought	Nature of Request	PIO’s Stance
1	Name/Designation of Staff	Factual/Record-based	“Hypothetical”
2	Land Map & Measurements	Physical Document	“Hypothetical”
3	SDM’s Order Copy	Legal Document	“Hypothetical”
4	Description of Services	Accountability/Audit	“Hypothetical”
5	Reason for lack of documentation	Administrative Clarification	“Hypothetical”

---

The Path Forward: Demanding Accountability

The rejection of this RTI is a classic example of “Malafide Intent.” Under Section 20 of the RTI Act, a PIO can be penalised if they “malafidely denied the request for information”. (RTI Rejection: Issues in UPIC)

1. Immediate Appeal: The applicant must highlight to the First Appellate Authority (FAA) that the information sought is held in “material form” (maps, registers, and files) and therefore cannot be “hypothetical.
2. Judicial Intervention: If the Uttar Pradesh Information Commission remains a silent spectator, the matter must be taken to the High Court under Article 226. The court has repeatedly held that “Information” includes any material in any form.
3. Public Scrutiny: Names like Hemant Kumar (PIO) and Shiv Pratap Shukla (Nodal Officer) must be held accountable in the public domain for their failure to uphold the law they are sworn to protect.

Conclusion (RTI Rejection: Issues in UPIC)

The Right to Information is a fundamental tool for the “Aam Aadmi” to fight against the “Inspector Raj.” When officials in Mirzapur treat a simple request for a land map as a “hypothetical question,” they are mocking the Constitution. Officers who are afraid of the truth cannot promote transparency. It is time for the Uttar Pradesh government to decide whether it stands with the citizens who pay the fees or with the corrupt officials who pocket the silence.

Based on the official records and the details provided in your RTI application, here are the contact details for the concerned public authorities and nodal officers involved in your case.

1. Primary Public Authority: District Magistrate Office, Mirzapur (RTI Rejection: Issues in UPIC)

This is the office where your RTI (Registration No: DMOMR/R/2024/60082) was filed.

• Public Information Officer (PIO):
  • Name: Hemant Kumar
  • Designation: Tehsildar (Sadar)
  • Mobile: 9454416823
  • Email: teh-sadar.mi@up.gov.in
• Nodal Officer (Mirzapur):
  • Name: Shiv Pratap Shukla
  • Mobile: 7392934899
  • Email: shakti.3916@up.gov.in
• District Magistrate (Head of Authority):
  • Name: Shri Pawan Kumar Gangwar (I.A.S.)
  • Email: dmmir@nic.in
  • Phone: 9454417567

---

2. Higher Oversight Authorities (RTI Rejection: Issues in UPIC)

If you are dissatisfied with the PIO’s rejection, these are the channels for your First and Second Appeals.

• First Appellate Authority (FAA): Usually the Additional District Magistrate (ADM) or Sub-Divisional Magistrate (SDM) of the concerned area.
  • ADM (Finance & Revenue): 9454417638 | admfr.mi-up@gov.in
  • ADM (Land & Revenue): 9454416808 | adm.lr.mi-up@gov.in
• Uttar Pradesh Information Commission (Second Appeal Body):
  • Address: 7/7A, RTI Bhawan, Vibhuti Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow, UP.
  • Phone: 0522-2724930
  • Email: webmaster-upic@up.gov.in / jansu-section.upic@up.gov.in
  • Web Link: Official UPIC Portal

---

3. Relevant Web Links for Tracking & Filing (RTI Rejection: Issues in UPIC)

• UP RTI Online Portal: https://rtionline.up.gov.in/ (Use this link to verify your status or file an appeal).
• Mirzapur District Official Website: https://mirzapur.nic.in/ (For the latest “Who’s Who” list of officers).
• UP Revenue Board: https://bor.up.nic.in/ (Useful for checking land measurement rules and Section 24 procedures).

---

Summary Table of Key Contacts (RTI Rejection: Issues in UPIC)

Authority	Name/Designation	Mobile/Phone	Email
PIO (Tehsil Sadar)	Hemant Kumar	9454416823	teh-sadar.mi@up.gov.in
Nodal Officer	Shiv Pratap Shukla	7392934899	shakti.3916@up.gov.in
District Magistrate	Pawan Kumar Gangwar	9454417567	dmmir@nic.in
Information Commission	RTI Bhawan, Lucknow	0522-2724930	jansu-section.upic@up.gov.in

Would you like me to help you draft the text for a First Appeal to the ADM Mirzapur, specifically challenging the PIO’s “hypothetical” claim using these contact details?