Think about the sensitivity of the public staff to the rights of women, the advisory concerning the compulsory registration of first information report in case of women, is not available in the records of office of superintendent of police, disclosed by public information officer in the office of Superintendent of police Mirzapur.

---

Accountability or Apathy? The Missing 2015 Women’s Rights Advisory in Mirzapur Police Records

In a functioning democracy, the “Right to Reason” and the “Right to Information” are the pillars that hold public institutions accountable. However, a recent RTI appeal involving the Office of the Superintendent of Police (SP), Mirzapur, raises serious questions about how critical legal advisories concerning women’s safety are managed and archived.

The Core Issue: A Vanishing Mandate

In October 2015, the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA), Government of India, issued a landmark advisory to all States and Union Territories. This advisory mandated the compulsory registration of First Information Reports (FIRs) under Section 154 of the CrPC, specifically regarding crimes against women.

Despite the gravity of this mandate, the Public Information Officer (PIO) in Mirzapur has stated that the record is “not found” because it was issued ten years ago.

The Paper Trail: From Delhi to Mirzapur

The appellant, Shri Yogi M.P. Singh, tracked the movement of this specific RTI request through the administrative hierarchy. The journey of the application reveals 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

The fact that the application was successfully transferred down this chain implies that the advisory is part of the official “dealing” of the police department. The claim that such a foundational document is missing suggests either a failure in record-keeping or a lack of sensitivity toward the rights of women.

Critical Questions Raised in the Appeal

The appeal (Registration No: SPMZR/A/2025/60020) challenges the PIO’s response on several grounds, seeking clarity on how policies translate into grassroots action:

• 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 was not merely a suggestion; it was a directive to ensure that women seeking justice are not turned away from police stations. When a district police headquarters claims it cannot find such a document, it creates a “policy vacuum” at the local level. If the police stations are unaware of the mandatory nature of FIR registration, the legal protections guaranteed to women remain only on paper.

The “Ten-Year” Excuse

The PIO’s defense—that the document is a decade old—is legally thin. Government records concerning permanent policy changes and human rights advisories are generally expected to be preserved. By disposing of the appeal (as of June 03, 2025) without providing the specific names of officials or the list of notified police stations, the department risks being perceived as providing “misleading or incomplete information.”

---

Final Thought

Transparency is not just about answering “yes” or “no”; it is about explaining the “how” and “why” of governance. For the citizens of Mirzapur, the search for this “missing” advisory is more than a legal battle—it is a quest to ensure that the police force remains sensitive and responsive to the rights of women.

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”

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

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

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):

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

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.