RTI Concerns & Mirzapur Police: The Right to Information (RTI) Act plays a crucial role in ensuring transparency and accountability within public institutions, including the Mirzapur Police. Local police have raised concerns about their responsiveness to RTI queries, which are vital for fostering trust between law enforcement and the community. Many citizens are eager to understand police operations, resource allocation, and handling of criminal cases. However, delays in responses and the inadequate information provided can lead to frustration and scepticism among the public. Addressing these challenges is essential for enhancing the relationship between the Mirzapur Police and the citizens they serve.
Here are the key takeaways from the analysis of the RTI dispute between Shri Yogi M. P. Singh and the Mirzapur Police:
1. The Tactics of Evasion
The primary issue highlighted is the use of “Circular Logic” by the Public Information Officer (PIO). By citing a previous 2024 disposal to answer a new 2025 appeal, the police avoided addressing five specific, high-stakes questions regarding investigation procedures and digital footprints.
2. Failure to Honor the “Right to Reason”
A central theme is that administrative transparency requires more than just a “Yes” or “No.” The blog emphasises that the appellant has a legal right to see the official notings and comments that led to the case’s closure. Withholding these suggests a lack of accountability in how “Final Reports” (closure reports) are approved.
3. The “Black Hole” of Cybercrime Investigation
The takeaways regarding the specific cyber fraud (FIR No. 226/2023) include:
- 1930 Helpline Utility: There is no clarity on whether the police actually utilised the data from the national cybercrime reporting portal, raising doubts about the integration of tech tools in local policing.
- Banking Negligence: The police failed to provide information on whether they investigated the KYC lapses of the banks where the fraudulent money was transferred.
4. Systemic Bias in the Appeals Process
The post points out a conflict of interest within the First Appellate Authority (FAA). Since the FAA is often the immediate superior of the PIO within the same department, “disposals” are frequently processed as rubber stamps rather than objective reviews of the citizen’s grievances.
5. Bureaucratic Exhaustion
The overarching takeaway is that the Mirzapur Police appear to be using “Bureaucratic Exhaustion”—a strategy of providing vague, repetitive, or irrelevant answers to discourage the citizen from pursuing the truth. This undermines the core spirit of the RTI Act of 2005.
RTI Concerns & Mirzapur Police: How Mirzapur Police Turned the RTI Act into a Bureaucratic Maze
RTI Concerns & Mirzapur Police: The Right to Information (RTI) Act of 2005 was intended to serve as a beacon of transparency in Indian governance, empowering citizens like Shri Yogi M.P. Singh to demand accountability from powerful institutions. Yet, a recent interaction between a citizen and the Mirzapur Police about a cyber fraud investigation (FIR No. 226/2023) shows that this intended transparency is being hidden by a widespread culture of administrative indifference and complicated reasoning in Uttar Pradesh.
The case in question—involving the fraudulent theft of ₹4,999—might seem small in fiscal terms, but the procedural mockery displayed by the Public Information Officer (PIO) represents a massive systemic failure. When the police respond to specific, pointed queries with vague references to past disposals, they aren’t just withholding facts; they are undermining the rule of law.
The Anatomy of the Information Request: Seeking Accountability
Shri Yogi M.P. Singh’s appeal was not a “fishing expedition. It consisted of five precise points aimed at understanding why a cybercrime investigation ended in a “Final Report” (closure) without a breakthrough. His queries touched on the very essence of police duty:
- The Investigation Report: Since the probe was officially over, there was no legal “investigation pending” excuse to withhold the report.
- Supervisory Oversight: Who was the competent officer who looked at the evidence and said, “Yes, we can’t solve this; close it”?
- The Decision-Making Process: What were the official notings? In a democracy, the “Right to Reason” is fundamental. (RTI Concerns & Mirzapur Police)
- Utility of State Infrastructure: Did the investigation officer actually use the data from the 1930 cybercrime helpline?
- Financial Trails: Where did the money go? If the accounts were indeed bogus, why was no action taken against the banks for their failure to comply with KYC norms?
Each of these questions aims to connect a citizen’s loss with the state’s inaction.
The PIO’s Reply: A Masterclass in Evasion
On May 26, 2025, the PIO/Additional Superintendent of Police (Operations) of Mirzapur issued a response that can only be described as a “shutter-down” tactic. Instead of addressing the five points, the reply stated that information related to a previous application (from 2024) had already been sent and that the State Information Commission (SIC) had disposed of a related file. (RTI Concerns & Mirzapur Police)
This is a classic “Red Herring” fallacy. The disposal of a previous file by the SIC does not grant a public authority permanent immunity from answering new, specific queries under a fresh appeal. By pointing to a past date (04/12/2024), the PIO effectively ignored the specific demands of the current appeal (SPMZR/A/2025/60021). This is not just a technical error; it is a calculated attempt to exhaust the applicant by forcing them into a perpetual loop of appeals.
The “Final Report” Trap and the Right to Reason
In Uttar Pradesh, turning in a “Final Report” (FR) often means the end of justice. When the police file an FR, it signifies they have failed to identify the culprit. While failure is a possibility in any investigation, the RTI Act mandates that the process of that failure be transparent.
The appellant bases the demand for “notings made by the competent officer” on the principle of Administrative Fairness. If the police spent months investigating a cyber fraud and decided to close the case, the victim has a right to know if the investigator followed the digital trail or simply sat on the file until the clock ran out. By refusing to provide these notings, the Mirzapur Police are treating public records as private property.
The Silent Helpline: Why 1930 Matters
The 1930 National Cyber Crime Reporting Portal is touted as India’s primary weapon against digital theft.1 The appellant’s query about whether the investigation officer utilised the 1930 data is crucial.
If the police are not integrating helpline data into their field investigations, the helpline is merely a psychological pacifier for victims rather than a law enforcement tool. The PIO’s silence on this specific point suggests a worrying lack of synergy between technology-driven initiatives and ground-level policing in Mirzapur.
Banking Accountability: The Missing Link (RTI Concerns & Mirzapur Police)
Perhaps the most stinging part of the appeal is the question regarding the fraudulent bank accounts. Every cyber fraud ends in a bank account. Under RBI guidelines, banks are responsible for “Know Your Customer” (KYC) compliance.2
If someone moved the money stolen from Keshav Prasad into a “mule account,” the police must investigate the bank’s negligence. By ignoring Query No. 5, the Mirzapur Police are effectively shielding financial institutions from accountability, leaving the victim to wonder whose side the law is actually on.
The Role of the First Appellate Authority (FAA)
The FAA, SSP Somen Verma, marked the status of the appeal as “DISPOSED OF” as of May 27, 2025. However, “disposal” does not mean “satisfaction.”satisfaction”.nces in Uttar Pradesh, FAAs—who are senior officers within the same department—simply rubber-stamp the PIO’s evasive remarks.
This internal solidarity within the police department creates a “conflict of interest”. How can a Senior Superintendent of Police objectively judge the failings of his own Additional SP? This is why RTI appeals often feel like a game played on a tilted field.
Conclusion: Justice Delayed is Transparency Denied
The response provided to Shri Yogi M.P. Singh is a textbook example of how the RTI Act is being diluted through “bureaucratic exhaustion”. By providing a non-answer and citing a past disposal, the Mirzapur Police are hoping the applicant will simply go away.
But the issue isn’t just about ₹4,999. It is about the precedent. If a citizen cannot obtain a straight answer about a simple fraud case, how can we expect transparency in matters of life, liberty, or large-scale corruption? (RTI Concerns & Mirzapur Police)
The Mirzapur Police must recognise that the RTI Act serves as an obligation rather than a mere suggestion. Arbitrary and inconsistent responses disrespect the seeker and undermine the Constitution of India. The State Information Commission should shift its focus from “disposal numbers” to prioritising the quality of justice it delivers—or denies—in these responses.
To help you navigate your case effectively, we provide the official contact details and web resources for the public authorities involved in your RTI appeal.
1. Public Authority: District Police, Mirzapur (RTI Concerns & Mirzapur Police)
The officials mentioned in your letter (PIO and FAA) are the primary points of contact for your specific application.
| Designation | Name of Officer | Mobile Number | Official Email |
| First Appellate Authority (FAA) | Shri Somen Verma (SSP/DIG) | 9454400299 | spmzr-up@nic.in |
| Public Information Officer (PIO) | Shri Manish Kumar Mishra (Addl. SP Op.) | 9454401105 | asp-op.mi@up.gov.in |
| Nodal Officer (RTI) | Shri Omprakash Singh | 9125608556 | addlspopmzr@gmail.com |
- Office Address: Superintendent of Police Office, Civil Lines, Mirzapur, Uttar Pradesh – 231001. (RTI Concerns & Mirzapur Police)
2. State Authority: Uttar Pradesh State Information Commission (UPSIC) (RTI Concerns & Mirzapur Police)
Since your appeal status is marked as “Disposed” by the local police and the information provided is still unsatisfactory, it is advisable to proceed with a Second Appeal to the State Commission for further resolution.
- Web Link (Online RTI Portal): rtionline.up.gov.in
- Web Link (SIC Cause List/Status): upsic.up.gov.in
- SIC Helpline: 0522-27249301
- Office Address: RTI Bhawan, 7/7A, Vibhuti Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow, UP 226010.2
- Email: webmaster-upic@up.gov.in3
3. Cyber Crime Reporting (1930 Context) (RTI Concerns & Mirzapur Police)
Since point #4 of your request specifically asks about the 1930 helpline usage, you can also reach out to the State Cyber Cell if the local police continue to be non-responsive.
- UP Cyber Police Email: sp-cyber.lu@up.gov.in4
- National Portal: [suspicious link removed]
Key Application IDs for Your Reference (RTI Concerns & Mirzapur Police)
Please use these exact numbers in all future correspondence based on the documents you provided:
- Appeal Registration Number:
SPMZR/A/2025/60021 - Letter Reference Number:
JS Online Appeal-27/2025/ SPMZR/A/2025/60021 - Original Case Reference:
FIR No. 226/2023(PS Katra)
Next Step: Since the FAA has “disposed” of your appeal without providing the specific documents you requested (the Final Report notings and bank KYC details), would you like me to help you draft the Second Appeal to the State Information Commission in Lucknow?
Facing a similar challenge? Share the details in the box below, and our team of experts will do their best to help.