Key takeaways from the blog post

The key takeaway from the blog post is the critical breakdown of administrative accountability and the Right to Information (RTI) framework when law enforcement ignores constitutional oversight.

Here are the core pillars of the issue:

• Institutional Defiance: The Office of the Superintendent of Police (SP) Mirzapur failed to comply with a direct order from the Uttar Pradesh Human Rights Commission (UPHRC), signaling a disregard for statutory authority.
• Tactical Evasion: The Public Information Officer (PIO) and the Circle Officer used “jurisdictional deflection”—claiming the information wasn’t in their specific office—rather than fulfilling their legal duty to transfer the request to the correct department.
• The “Right to Reason”: The post emphasizes that administrative silence is a violation of democratic principles; citizens have a legal right to know why an order was not followed.
• Systemic Failure: The case highlights a “trend” of local law enforcement acting as information gatekeepers, forcing citizens into lengthy legal battles (Second Appeals) to obtain basic transparency.

The Accountability Gap: When Law Enforcement Ignores Constitutional Mandates

In a healthy democracy, the rule of law is the invisible thread that holds the fabric of society together. However, when law enforcement agencies—the very entities charged with upholding the law—begin to overlook the directives of constitutional functionaries, that fabric starts to unravel.

The case of Sadhana Tiwari vs. The Public Information Officer (PIO), Office of the Superintendent of Police, Mirzapur, serves as a stark illustration of administrative apathy and the systemic failure of the Right to Information (RTI) framework when faced with institutional resistance.

---

The Genesis: A Mandate from the Human Rights Commission

The issue began with a clear directive. On September 5, 2024, the Uttar Pradesh Human Rights Commission (UPHRC) reviewed a complaint filed by Sadhana Tiwari. Recognizing the gravity of the allegations, the Commission issued a specific order:

“The Superintendent of Police, Mirzapur shall look into the matter and do the needful in accordance with law at his end with the intimation to the complainant.

This wasn’t a mere suggestion; it was a formal direction from a statutory body designed to protect the fundamental rights of citizens. The UPHRC expected a “needful” action and a subsequent report back to the victim.

---

The Wall of Silence: Non-Compliance and Deflection

Fast forward to 2025, and the order appears to have vanished into a bureaucratic black hole. Seeking transparency, Tiwari filed an RTI request to track the progress of this order. Her questions were surgical and precise:

1. Who received the UPHRC order?
2. What “notings” (internal comments) were made on the file?
3. What is the Action Taken Report (ATR)?
4. If no action was taken, what is the administrative reason for the delay?

Instead of receiving answers, the applicant was met with a classic bureaucratic maneuver: jurisdictional deflection. The Circle Officer (CO) of Lalganj claimed the information was “not related to this office.”

While technically true—as the order was sent to the Superintendent’s office—this response highlights a deeper failure. Under Section 6(3) of the RTI Act, if a public authority receives a request for information held by another office, they are legally obligated to transfer it. Instead, the request was simply denied, effectively silencing the citizen.

---

Why “Right to Reason” Matters

One of the most profound points raised in Tiwari’s appeal is the Right to Reason. The Supreme Court of India has repeatedly held that “reason is the heartbeat of every administrative order.” Without reasons, an administration becomes arbitrary, and its decisions (or lack thereof) become oppressive.

When the Office of the SP Mirzapur fails to provide a reason for ignoring a Human Rights Commission order, they aren’t just withholding a document; they are undermining the principle of “Good Governance.

The Consequences of Wilful Disobedience

Failure to comply with UPHRC directives isn’t just a procedural lapse; it carries legal weight. The Commission has the authority to:

• Recommend disciplinary action against negligent officials.
• Initiate legal proceedings, including contempt actions.
• Escalate the matter to the state legislature.

---

The RTI Appeal: A Battle for Transparency

The Second Appeal (Registration No. A-20250300419) currently before the Uttar Pradesh Information Commission represents more than just one person’s struggle. It highlights a “trend” where district-level police offices treat constitutional directions as optional.

The logic used by the PIO in this case is a paradox. By admitting the information belongs to the SP’s office but refusing to facilitate its release, the department is engaging in information gatekeeping. This forces citizens into a grueling cycle of appeals (First Appeal, then Second Appeal to the State Commission), hoping that exhaustion will eventually lead them to give up.

---

Systemic Failure or Individual Negligence?

The complainant’s statement is chilling: “System is failed.” When the Circle Officer of Lalganj and the PIO of the SP’s office work in silos to deny information regarding a Human Rights violation, it suggests a systemic effort to shield the administration from accountability. Good governance cannot exist in a vacuum of secrecy. It requires:

• Promptness: Responding to oversight bodies within stipulated timeframes.
• Accountability: Identifying the specific “desk” or “staff” responsible for processing orders.
• Integrity: Admitting when an order hasn’t been followed and providing a roadmap for rectification.

---

The Way Forward: Restoring Faith in the Process

The hearing scheduled for June 16, 2025, at the Uttar Pradesh Information Commission is a critical juncture. For the Commission, this is an opportunity to send a clear message: The police are not above the law, nor are they exempt from the RTI Act.

To restore public faith, the following steps are essential:

1. Immediate Disclosure: The SP Mirzapur must release the file notings and the Action Taken Report.
2. Penalty Provisions: If wilful suppression of information is found, penalties under Section 20 of the RTI Act should be levied against the PIO.
3. Compliance Monitoring: A mechanism must be established to ensure that Human Rights Commission orders are not just received, but tracked and closed.

Conclusion

The case of Sadhana Tiwari is a microcosm of a larger struggle for civil liberties in India. When a citizen has to fight for months just to find out who handled a letter from a Human Rights Commission, the “Right to Information” feels less like a tool of empowerment and more like a hurdle.

True governance is measured not by the orders passed in high courts or commissions, but by the implementation of those orders at the district and station level. Until the Office of the SP Mirzapur answers for its silence, the “Good Governance” promised to the people remains a distant dream.

To assist with your follow-up on the case (Registration Number A-20250300419), here are the verified contact details and web links for the relevant public authorities.

1. Uttar Pradesh Information Commission (UPIC)

This is the body overseeing your Second Appeal. Your case is in Court S-9.

• Official Website: upsic.up.gov.in
• Court S-9 (Shakuntala Gautam): hearingcourts9.upic@up.gov.in
• Registrar (UPIC): registrar-upic@up.gov.in
• RTI Cell In-charge: jansu-section.upic@up.gov.in
• Office Address: 7/7A, RTI Bhawan, Vibhuti Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow, UP.
• Office Phone: 0522-2724930

---

2. Police Authorities (Mirzapur District)

These are the primary respondents who have allegedly failed to comply with the Human Rights Commission order.

Authority	Email Address	Mobile / CUG Number
SP Mirzapur	spmzp-up@nic.in	9454400299
ASP Operation (PIO)	asp-op.mi@up.gov.in	9454401105
ASP City	asp-city.mi@up.gov.in	9454401104
CO Lalganj	co-lalganj.mi@up.gov.in	9454401592

---

3. Oversight & Grievance Portals

If the local police continue to ignore the directives, you can escalate through these official channels:

• Uttar Pradesh Human Rights Commission (UPHRC):
  • Email: uphrc@nic.in or uphrclko@yahoo.co.in
  • Phone: 0522-2726742
• UP Police Anti-Corruption Org (Mirzapur Unit):
  • Email: aco-mirzapur.mi@up.gov.in
  • Mobile: 9454402487
• Jansunwai (IGRS) Portal: jansunwai.up.nic.in (Use this to report the “Non-Compliance” as a fresh grievance against the SP).
• Online RTI UP Portal: rtionline.up.gov.in

---

Key Application Details to Reference

Always quote these numbers in your emails to ensure they are linked to your file:

• Appeal Registration No: A-20250300419
• File Number: S09/A/0719/2025
• UPHRC Order Date: 05/09/2024

Note: When emailing Court S-9, it is often helpful to carbon-copy (CC) the DGP Uttar Pradesh (dgpup@nic.in) and the ADG Human Rights (UP Police) (9454400120) to highlight that the district office is ignoring constitutional mandates.

Would you like me to draft a “Notice of Non-Compliance” to be sent specifically to the UPHRC Registrar?