The Impact of Home Ministry Advisory on women’s safety depends on one simple thing. It must reach district police offices and remain on file as an enforceable record. In Mirzapur, an RTI disclosure from the Superintendent of Police’s office suggests a crucial advisory is not available in office records. As a result, serious questions arise about accountability, compliance, and record-keeping.

---

Impact of Home Ministry Advisory: The Missing 2015 Women’s Rights Mandate in Mirzapur Police Records

In a functioning democracy, the “Right to Reason” and the “Right to Information” keep public institutions answerable. In this case, the Office of the Superintendent of Police (SP), Mirzapur shows why the Impact of Home Ministry Advisory is not theoretical. If key directions on women’s safety go missing from district records, police-station compliance becomes uncertain. Consequently, victims pay the price.

The Core Issue: A Vanishing Mandate (Impact of Home Ministry Advisory)

In October 2015, the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA), Government of India, issued a landmark advisory to all States and Union Territories. It aimed to create immediate, practical change. Specifically, this advisory mandated the compulsory registration of First Information Reports (FIRs) under Section 154 of the CrPC. Moreover, it focused on crimes against women.

However, despite the gravity of this mandate, the Public Information Officer (PIO) in Mirzapur states that the record is “not found”. The PIO says the office cannot trace it because the MHA issued it ten years ago.

The Paper Trail: From Delhi to Mirzapur (Impact of Home Ministry Advisory)

Next, the appellant, Shri Yogi M.P. Singh, traced this RTI request through the administrative hierarchy. He followed the file as it moved from office to office. As a result, the record shows a clear chain of command:

1. Chief Secretary, UP Government
2. Department of Home
3. Director General of Police (DGP) Office
4. Superintendent of Police (SP) Mirzapur

Because the department transferred the application down this chain, the advisory appears to form part of the police department’s official dealing. Therefore, when the office now claims that it cannot locate such a foundational document, it points to a serious lapse. Either the office failed to maintain records, or it treated women’s rights as a low priority.

Critical Questions Raised in the Appeal

The appeal (Registration No: SPMZR/A/2025/60020) challenges the PIO’s response on several grounds. In particular, it asks how policy translates into action on the ground. It also seeks clear, verifiable answers.

• Personnel Accountability: Who received and processed this advisory in the Mirzapur SP office?
• Dissemination: Was this advisory ever sent to local police stations and outposts? If so, which ones?
• The Right to Reason: If no action was taken on this advisory in Mirzapur, what is the administrative justification for this inaction?

Why This Matters: The Impact on Women

The 2015 advisory did not offer a mere suggestion. Instead, it directed police to ensure that women seeking justice do not face refusal at police stations. This is the real Impact of Home Ministry Advisory. It should convert courtroom principles into day-to-day police practice. However, when a district police headquarters says it cannot find the advisory, it creates a policy vacuum. As a result, police stations may ignore the mandatory nature of FIR registration. Consequently, legal protections remain only on paper.

The “Ten-Year” Excuse

The PIO defends the response by saying the document is a decade old. However, that explanation is legally thin. Agencies generally preserve government records on permanent policy changes and human rights advisories. Moreover, the department disposed of the appeal (as of June 03, 2025) without naming responsible officials. It also did not list the notified police stations. Therefore, the public may reasonably view the reply as “misleading or incomplete information.”

---

Final Thought (Impact of Home Ministry Advisory)

Transparency is not only about answering “yes” or “no.” It also requires explaining the “how” and “why” of governance. In Mirzapur, the missing record shows the Impact of Home Ministry Advisory in a concrete way. If officials cannot locate an advisory, they cannot implement it. They also cannot monitor or audit compliance. Therefore, this “missing” mandate is not a minor paperwork dispute. Instead, it tests whether women’s rights directives reach the ground.

To answer your question precisely: Yes, an RTI application can be submitted to the Supreme Court of India, but its scope is limited to information held by the Court’s own registry.

However, your specific issue (non-compliance with a 2015 MHA Advisory by the Mirzapur Police) involves a different legal path. Here is the breakdown of how the Supreme Court’s involvement works in this context:

1. RTI to the Supreme Court: Scope and Limits

You can file an RTI with the Supreme Court of India (via their Online RTI Portal), but the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) of the Supreme Court can only provide information that is “held by or under the control of” the Supreme Court Registry.

• What you CAN ask the SC: Records of judicial orders, administrative circulars issued by the SC to High Courts, or status reports submitted by States to the SC in specific cases (like Lalita Kumari).
• What you CANNOT ask the SC: You cannot ask the Supreme Court CPIO why the Mirzapur Police lost a document or why they aren’t following the law. The Supreme Court does not maintain the local files of district police offices.

2. The “Special Section” for Compliance

While there isn’t a “Special RTI Section” that manually tracks every police station, there are two legal mechanisms often confused with this:

• The PIL/Writ Jurisdiction (Article 32): The Supreme Court ensures compliance with its landmark judgments (like Lalita Kumari vs. Govt. of UP, which mandated FIR registration) through Contempt of Court petitions or “M.A.” (Miscellaneous Applications) filed by parties to the case.
• Judicial Vigilance: High Courts (under Article 227) have the power of “superintendence” over all courts and, by extension, monitor the implementation of legal mandates within the state.

3. The Landmark Case: Lalita Kumari vs. Govt. of UP (2014)

The 2015 MHA Advisory you are seeking was actually issued to give effect to the Supreme Court’s judgment in Lalita Kumari.

• In that case, the Supreme Court held that registration of an FIR is mandatory under Section 154 of the CrPC if the information discloses a cognizable offence.
• The Court specifically ordered that action must be taken against erring officers who do not register FIRs.

Your Best Next Steps

Since the Mirzapur Police claim the record is “missing,” filing an RTI at the Supreme Court is unlikely to produce the Mirzapur-specific file. Instead, consider these more effective routes:

1. Complaint to the State Information Commission (SIC): Since the PIO provided “incomplete/false” information by claiming a permanent policy document is “missing,” you can file a Second Appeal or a Complaint under Section 18 of the RTI Act.
2. Petition to the Allahabad High Court: You can file a Writ of Mandamus asking the court to direct the Mirzapur Police to produce the compliance report of the 2015 Advisory.
3. Section 166A IPC: Remind the authorities (in writing) that under Section 166A of the IPC, a public servant who fails to record an FIR in relation to specific offences against women can be punished with rigorous imprisonment.

You are absolutely correct in your legal assessment. The Supreme Court is indeed a “Court of Record” under Article 129 of the Constitution of India, meaning its decisions and proceedings are preserved as perpetual testimony and carry the force of law.

When the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) issues an advisory based on a Supreme Court judgment (such as Lalita Kumari v. Govt. of UP), that advisory is not just “guidance”—it is a formal instruction to ensure the law of the land is followed. If this advisory has “not reached” a District SP Office in 10 years, it is indeed a severe administrative failure that borders on Contempt of Court.

1. The Contempt of Court Argument

The Supreme Court in Lalita Kumari (2014) explicitly stated:

“Action must be taken against erring officers who do not register the FIR if information received by him discloses a cognizable offence.

By claiming the advisory is “missing” or “not found,” the Mirzapur Police are essentially admitting that they are not aware of, or are not following, the mandatory guidelines set by the Apex Court. In legal terms:

• Willful Disobedience: Ignoring a mandate for 10 years can be interpreted as “willful disobedience” of the judicial direction to ensure mandatory FIR registration.
• Obstruction of Justice: Failure to maintain these records obstructs the right of women to seek justice, which the Supreme Court has characterized as a violation of Article 21 (Right to Life and Liberty).

2. Can you file an RTI at the Supreme Court?

While you can file an RTI at the Supreme Court, it may not be the most effective tool for this specific “missing record” in Mirzapur.

• The Supreme Court’s CPIO will only tell you if they sent the judgment to the UP Government (which they did).
• They cannot “find” a file that is supposedly lost in a district office in Mirzapur.

3. Effective Legal Remedies for Non-Compliance

Since you believe this is a matter of contempt and systemic negligence, here are the more powerful steps you can take:

Method	Action	Why it works
Contempt Petition	File a Contempt Petition in the Allahabad High Court or Supreme Court.	Forces the SP Mirzapur to explain personally to a Judge why the 2015 mandate is not in their records.
Section 166A IPC	File a complaint against the PIO/SP under Section 166A.	This law specifically punishes public servants who “knowingly disobey any direction of the law” (like the 2015 advisory).
State Information Commission (SIC)	File a Second Appeal/Complaint.	Request the SIC to conduct an Inquiry under Section 18 regarding the “destruction/loss” of critical human rights records.
National Commission for Women (NCW)	File a formal complaint regarding the “lost” advisory.	The NCW can summon the DGP of Uttar Pradesh to explain why a women’s rights advisory has been “lost” for a decade.

4. The “Right to Reason”

As you noted in your prayer, the Supreme Court has repeatedly held that the Right to Reason is an essential part of the rule of law. A PIO saying “it is 10 years old, so it’s not found” is not a “reason”—it is an admission of administrative collapse.

To identify the “defaulter” in a matter of Contempt of Court, we must look at the Chain of Command. Since the Supreme Court’s orders are binding on all authorities under Article 144 of the Constitution, the failure of a 2015 advisory to reach its destination involves a breakdown at several levels.

Here is how we can systematically identify the defaulters:

1. The Principle of “Supervisory Responsibility” (Impact of Home Ministry Advisory)

In administrative law, the head of the department is responsible for the implementation of the law. To find the specific defaulter, we must pin down where the “break” in the chain occurred:

• The State Level (Primary Defaulter): The Chief Secretary and the Principal Secretary (Home) of Uttar Pradesh. They received the advisory from the Union Home Ministry in 2015. If they failed to ensure it was entered into the “Standing Orders” of the state police, the contempt begins here.
• The Police Headquarters (Secondary Defaulter): The Director General of Police (DGP), UP. The DGP is responsible for issuing “Circulars” based on MHA advisories. If no circular was issued to the Districts, the DGP’s office is in default.
• The District Level (Immediate Defaulter): The Senior Superintendent of Police (SSP/SP), Mirzapur. Even if a document is “lost,” the SP is legally presumed to know the law of the land (the Lalita Kumari judgment). Claiming the record is “not found” is an admission of a failure in Superintendence.

---

2. Identifying the Specific Record Defaulter via RTI (Impact of Home Ministry Advisory)

To identify the individual name of the defaulter, you can use a targeted RTI strategy. Instead of asking for the advisory itself, ask for the Record Retention Schedule and Despatch Registers:

Information to Seek	Why this identifies the Defaulter
Despatch Register (Oct 2015)	To see if the Home Dept actually sent the advisory to Mirzapur.
Receipt Register (Mirzapur SP Office)	To see who signed for the mail from the DGP office in 2015.
Record Officer’s Name	The “Record Keeper” or “Head Clerk” responsible for archiving permanent advisories.

---

3. Legal Action Against the Defaulters (Impact of Home Ministry Advisory)

Once the chain of custody is established, the following legal actions apply to the “Defaulter”:

A. Civil Contempt (Section 2(b) of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971) (Impact of Home Ministry Advisory)

For “willful disobedience” of the Supreme Court’s mandate in Lalita Kumari. The defaulter is the officer who was served the order/advisory but failed to implement it.

B. Section 166A of the IPC (Public servant disobeying law)

This is the most potent weapon. It specifically targets the officer who “knowingly disobeys” a direction of law meant to protect women. The “defaulter” here is any officer—from the SP to the SHO—who fails to record an FIR.

4. How to “Search” for the Defaulter Now (Impact of Home Ministry Advisory)

Since the PIO has already given you a written statement that the record is “not found,” you have the evidence of negligence.

Your next logical step to find the defaulter:

File a Section 18 Complaint to the State Information Commission. Request the Commission to:

1. Summon the “Record Retention Register” of the Mirzapur SP Office.
2. Order an Inquiry to identify the officer responsible for the “loss” of this document. Under the RTI Act, the Commission can penalize the specific individual who caused the information to disappear.