RTI Appeal Overview: A Detailed Examination of Violations Under the Right to Information Act. This RTI Appeal highlights violations of RTI and explores their implications.

This section explores the significant breaches of the Right to Information (RTI) Act, specifically highlighting the failures encountered during the appeal process. It outlines the various ways in which the Social Welfare Department has neglected its legal obligations, resulting in a lack of transparency and accountability. We examine the systemic issues and procedural lapses. This analysis points out the importance of adherence to the RTI Act. It ensures that citizens can access information and that their rights are safe. Additionally, it protects these rights from bureaucratic indifference.

Key Takeaways from this blog post

Here are the Key Takeaways from the analysis of how the Social Welfare Department handled your RTI appeal:

1. Systemic Violation of Section 6(3)

The most critical failure is the department’s refusal to transfer your application. The RTI Act requires the Social Welfare Department to transfer the technical data to the NIC/SDC within 5 days if they do not hold it. Telling the applicant to “go obtain it yourself” is a direct breach of their statutory duty.

2. Mockery of Time-Bound Justice

The RTI Act operates on the principle that when information is delayed, someone effectively denies it.

• The Law: Maximum of 45 days for appeal disposal.
• The Reality: Your appeal took 190 days. This delay is a gross administrative failure that effectively shields officials from immediate accountability.

3. Evading Financial Accountability

By claiming the portal is “jointly maintained” by other units, the department is attempting to dodge questions regarding the funds spent (Point 05) on maintenance. Since the Social Welfare Directorate is the primary beneficiary of this service, it should possess the financial records of payments made for these services.

4. Failure of the First Appellate Authority (FAA)

The FAA (Mr Arun Kumar Pandey) failed in his quasi-judicial role. Instead of directing the PIO to provide the information or transfer the application to the NIC/SDC, the FAA simply echoed the PIO’s evasive response, rendering the first stage of the appeal process redundant.

5. Intentional Lack of Transparency

The refusal to name the public staff monitoring the website and provide minutes of proceedings regarding server failures suggests an intentional effort to obscure the human responsibility behind the scholarship portal’s technical glitches.

6. Groundwork for Second Appeal

The department’s written admission—acknowledging they didn’t provide the info because “others maintain it”—is actually strong evidence for you. It proves they knew who had the info but chose not to follow the Section 6(3) transfer protocol. This is a primary ground for the State Information Commission to impose a penalty.

The Department of Social Welfare (UP) does not merely delay your appeal for six months; it blatantly disregards the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005. By ignoring the mandatory timelines and the legal duty to transfer applications under Section 6(3), the authorities have effectively transformed a transparency tool into an obstacle course for the citizen.

Below is a structured analysis of this systemic failure, formatted for a blog post to highlight these core issues.

---

RTI Appeal Highlights Violations of RTI: How the Social Welfare Dept is Dismantling the RTI Act

The Right to Information Act was designed to be the “sunlight” that disinfects the corridors of power. However, in the case of Registration Number: DIRSW/A/2024/60156, the Social Welfare Directorate of Uttar Pradesh has demonstrated how bureaucratic apathy can stifle transparency. When a citizen asks for information regarding scholarship portals—a system impacting millions of students—the department’s response has been a masterclass in legal evasion.

1. The Six-Month “Justice” Delay (RTI Appeal Highlights Violations of RTI)

Under Section 19(6) of the RTI Act, the First Appellate Authority (FAA) is legally mandated to dispose of an appeal within 30 days. In exceptional cases, the time frame can be extended to 45 days, provided the reasons are recorded in writing.

In this instance, the appeal filed on 25/11/2024 was disposed of on 02/06/2025. This 190-day delay is more than four times the legal limit. Such a delay is not just a procedural lapse; it is a “deemed refusal” and a mockery of the time-bound nature of the Act. When the law says 45 days, 190 days is a violation that warrants disciplinary action under Section 20.

2. Weaponizing the “Wrong Department” Excuse (Violation of Section 6(3)) (RTI Appeal Highlights Violations of RTI)

The PIO and FAA concluded that, because the scholarship website is maintained by the State Data Center (SDC) and NIC, the applicant should “obtain information from the mentioned departments.”

This is a direct violation of Section 6(3). The law is very clear:

• If another public authority holds the information, the PIO shall transfer the application to that authority within five days.
• The PIO cannot ask the applicant to file a new application elsewhere.

By telling the applicant to “go elsewhere” after holding the application for months, the Social Welfare Department has intentionally harassed the seeker and protected the data from public scrutiny.

3. The Core Issue: Transparency in Scholarship Portals

The information sought was not trivial. It concerned:

1. Administrative Accountability: Who is monitoring the portal?
2. System Failures: Why are students facing “NPCI server” errors?
3. Financial Transparency: How much public money is spent on maintaining a portal that frequently fails?

The Social Welfare Department is the “Owner” of the scholarship scheme. Even if the NIC provides technical hosting, the expenditure and policy decisions regarding website failures rest with the Directorate. Claiming total ignorance of these points is not only misleading but likely a “malafide” denial of information.

4. The Breakdown of Accountability (RTI Appeal Highlights Violations of RTI)

The RTI Act provides for penalties of ₹250 per day for such delays. However, there seems to be zero fear of the law within the Directorate. When PIOs like Shri Shashikant Singh and FAAs like Mr Arun Kumar Pandey fail to follow the basic manual of the RTI Act, it reflects a deeper “conspiracy of corruption” intended to keep the public in the dark.

---

Summary of Legal Violations

Violation Type	Relevant Section	Actual Conduct by Dept
Time Limit Breach	Section 7(1) & 19(6)	190 days taken instead of 45.
Failure to Transfer	Section 6(3)	Directed the applicant to file a fresh RTI instead of transferring.
Misleading Reply	Section 20(1)	Claimed no responsibility for their portal’s data.

---

Conclusion: The Need for Information Commission Intervention (RTI Appeal Highlights Violations of RTI)

This case is a fitting candidate for a Second Appeal to the Uttar Pradesh State Information Commission. The Commission must look beyond the simple provision of information and address the persistence of failure in this department. If officials do not face penalties for 190-day delays, the RTI Act will remain a “toothless tiger” in Uttar Pradesh.

To ensure your case is ironclad for the State Information Commission, we must categorise these actions not just as “errors” but as deliberate statutory violations. Here is a detailed breakdown of the legal failures committed by the Social Welfare Directorate.

---

⚖️ Formal Breakdown of RTI Violations

1. Violation of Section 6(3): Illegal Shifting of Burden

This is the most significant legal breach in your case.

• The Violation: The PIO and FAA stated that because the website is maintained by the SDC, UP Desko, and NIC, you must “obtain the information from them.”
• The Legal Reality: Section 6(3) mandates that if the information is held by another public authority, the PIO shall transfer the request within 5 days and inform the applicant.
• Impact: By forcing you to file new applications, they have effectively reset your 30-day waiting period, causing harassment and wasting public resources.

2. Violation of Section 19(6): Illegal Delay in Appeal Disposal

The timeline of your appeal represents a total collapse of the appellate mechanism.

• The First Appellate Authority disposed of your appeal (DIRSW/A/2024/60156), which you filed on 25/11/2024, on 02/06/2025.
• The FAA must dispose of an appeal within 30 days, and it can extend this period to 45 days if it provides written reasons.
• Impact: A 190-day delay is a “deemed refusal” of information. In the eyes of the Information Commission, this long delay often signals mala fide (bad faith) intent to suppress information.

3. Violation of Section 7(1): Failure to Provide “Available” Info

While the NIC provides technical hosting, the Social Welfare Department owns the Scholarship Scheme.

• The Violation: They refused to provide the name/designation of the monitoring officer (Point 4) and the maintenance funds (Point 5).
• The Social Welfare Department’s accounts wing holds the financial records of payments made to UP Desko or NIC for website maintenance. They cannot claim the information “belongs to another department” when they are the ones paying the bills.

4. Violation of Section 4(1)(b): Non-Disclosure of Suo Motu Info

The RTI Act requires departments to proactively publish the names and designations of their officers.

• The Violation: Initially failing to provide the name of the Deputy Director/Planning Officer (Shri RP Singh) until the second round of replies.
• Impact: Withholding the names of public servants responsible for public schemes is a breach of the transparency framework meant to ensure accountability for portal failures.

---

🚩 Summary for the Information Commission

If you move to the Second Appeal, you should summarise these violations in this specific table format to grab the Commissioner’s attention:

statutory Provision	Nature of Breach	Days of Default
Section 6(3)	Failure to transfer the application to NIC/SDC.	Permanent (Duty ignored)
Section 7(1)	Delay in PIO response (from 18/10 to 10/12).	23 Days Overdue
Section 19(6)	Delay in FAA disposal (from 25/11 to 02/06).	145 Days Overdue

---

What this means for your Second Appeal

The authorities admitted in writing that they know which departments hold the information (SDC, NIC, UP Desko) but chose not to transfer the RTI, giving you an “open and shut” case for the imposition of a penalty under Section 20(1). (RTI Appeal Highlights Violations of RTI)

Based on the legal facts and official directories, here are the application identifiers and contact details for the public authorities involved in your scholarship RTI case.

1. Social Welfare Directorate, Uttar Pradesh (Primary Authority) (RTI Appeal Highlights Violations of RTI).

This is the department responsible for the scholarship scheme and the authority that issued the six-month delayed disposal.

• Registration Number (Appeal): DIRSW/A/2024/60156
• Registration Number (RTI): DIRSW/R/2024/60139
• Appellate Authority (FAA): Mr Arun Kumar Pandey
• Designation: Appellate Authority / Director
• Mobile: 8081989398 / 9935249598
• Nodal Officer (RTI): Mrs Reeta
• Mobile: 6386377338
• Email: director.sw@dirsamajkalyan.in
• Website: dirsamajkalyan.in

---

2. National Informatics Centre (NIC), UP State Unit (RTI Appeal Highlights) Violations of RTI.

The Social Welfare Department asserts that this office maintains the scholarship portal. Under Section 6(3), it should have transferred your RTI to this office.

• Public Information Officer: Ms Vandna Singh
• Designation: State Public Information Officer (SPIO)
• Address: NIC Uttar Pradesh State Centre, Yojana Bhawan, Lucknow.
• Phone: 0522-2238415 / 0522-2298808
• Email: vandna.singh@nic.in
• Website: up.nic.in/rti

---

3. UP Desko (UP Development Systems Corp. Ltd.) (RTI Appeal Highlights Violations of RTI)

Mentioned in the reply as the joint operator of the scholarship website.

• Address: UPTRON Building, Near Gomti Barrage, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow 226010.
• Phone: 0522-2307803
• Email: mdupdesco.up@gmail.com
• Website: updesco.up.nic.in

---

4. Uttar Pradesh State Information Commission (UPSIC)

This is where you must file your Second Appeal to challenge the 6-month delay and the failure to transfer the RTI.

• Address: 7/7 A, RTI Bhawan, Vibhuti Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow, UP.
• Phone (Help Desk): 0522-2724930
• Email: webmaster-upic@up.gov.in
• Online Portal: upsic.up.gov.in

---

🛡️ Summary of Nodal Points for your Next Step: (RTI Appeal Highlights Violations of RTI)

If you are filing a formal complaint or a second appeal, you should cite that the Social Welfare Directorate (Nodal Officer: Mrs. Reeta) and the FAA (Mr. Arun Kumar Pandey) failed to utilise the contact details of Ms. Vandna Singh (NIC) for a Section 6(3) transfer, choosing instead to obstruct your right to information.

Would you like me to draft a formal letter to the State Information Commission using these specific contact details?