Key takeaways from the blog post
The core takeaway from this case is the emergence of “Digital Coercion” in public grievance systems. While platforms like IGRS/Jansunwai are designed to empower citizens, the pressure on officials to maintain high “satisfaction scores” has created a loophole where the OTP (One-Time Password) is weaponized.
The Essential Conflict:
- The Systemic Flaw: The “Satisfied” feedback mechanism is intended to be a citizen’s final check on police performance. However, when police demand the OTP, they effectively take control of the complainant’s “digital voice” to close cases on their own terms.
- The Bureaucratic Defense: The police framed the request as “procedural assistance,” but for an experienced RTI activist, this is viewed as an illegal attempt to manufacture consent and bypass accountability.
- The Transparency Gap: Despite the existence of recorded “taped conversations” that could prove whether the OTP was demanded or not, the authorities relied on internal reports rather than forensic evidence (the audio), leaving the truth obscured.
Why It Matters:
If public officials are allowed to solicit OTPs under the guise of “helping” the public, the integrity of all digital governance in India is at risk. It transforms a tool of accountability into a tool of statistical manipulation.
This situation highlights a critical tension between digital governance and administrative transparency. Below is a structured blog post analyzing the incident involving Shri Yogi M.P. Singh and the Mirzapur Police.
The Digital Gatekeepers: Transparency vs. Tactics in the IGRS Feedback System
In an era where the Indian government is pushing for “Minimum Government, Maximum Governance” through digital portals like Jansunwai (IGRS), a curious case has emerged from the district of Mirzapur. It involves an RTI activist, a Constable, and the controversial request for a One-Time Password (OTP).
At its heart, this is not just a dispute over a six-digit code; it is a battle over the integrity of public grievance redressal systems and the lengths to which administrative bodies might go to secure “satisfactory” performance metrics.
1. The Genesis of the Dispute: A Question of Intent
The conflict began when Shri Yogi M.P. Singh, a veteran anti-corruption crusader with 27 years of experience, filed an RTI application following a suspicious interaction with the IGRS Feedback Cell of the Mirzapur Police.
According to Singh, police personnel—specifically identified later as Constable Surendra Kumar—requested his OTP. In the digital ecosystem of the Uttar Pradesh government, an OTP sent to a complainant’s mobile is the final “key” required to close a grievance with a status of “Satisfied.”
The Core Allegation:
The applicant alleges that the police attempted to bypass the complainant’s autonomy. By obtaining the OTP, the police could theoretically log into the portal and register a “Satisfied” feedback on behalf of the citizen, thereby artificially inflating their performance records and closing pending disputes without actual resolution.
2. The Police Response: “Instruction, Not Solicitation”
Following the initial RTI and subsequent appeal (Letter No. JSAP Appeal-28/2025), the Office of the Senior Superintendent of Police (SSP) Mirzapur provided a formal justification. Their defense rests on three pillars:
- Educational Outreach: The department claims the Constable was merely explaining the “prescribed procedure” to an applicant who might not know how to navigate the portal.
- Denial of Receipt: The IGRS Cell maintains that no OTP was ever actually received or used by the staff to submit feedback.
- Procedural Compliance: The Public Information Officer (PIO) asserts that explaining the system is part of their duty to ensure grievances are processed correctly.
3. The RTI Activist’s Counter-Strike: The Logic of Autonomy
Shri Yogi M.P. Singh’s rebuttal is sharp and grounded in the fundamental logic of digital security. He raises a point that resonates with every digital citizen: Why would a seasoned activist ask a Constable for a tutorial on how to use a portal?
The “Efficiency” Argument
Singh’s appeal poignantly asks: “Do you think that your constable is more efficient than me?” He argues that the police’s claim of “explaining the process” is a smokescreen. In his view, the request for an OTP is an illegal demand. Under no government protocol is a public servant authorized to ask a citizen for an OTP, especially one that serves as a digital signature for satisfaction.
4. The Structural Flaw: Performance Metrics vs. Truth
The Mirzapur incident exposes a systemic issue within the Integrated Grievance Redressal System (IGRS). Police departments and administrative offices are often judged by the percentage of “Satisfied” feedback they receive.
| Feature | The Ideal Process | The Alleged “Shortcut” |
| Grievance Resolution | Quality investigation and resolution. | Superficial report filing. |
| Feedback Trigger | Complainant receives OTP to confirm. | Official asks for OTP via phone call. |
| Portal Entry | Citizen enters OTP to close the case. | Official enters OTP to “manufacture” satisfaction. |
This “Satisfied” status is a Key Performance Indicator (KPI) for senior officers. When the system prioritizes the appearance of resolution over the quality of resolution, it creates a perverse incentive for low-level staff to “persuade” or “trick” citizens into sharing their OTPs.
5. Legal and Ethical Implications
The demand for an OTP by a government official is not just a procedural lapse; it is a security risk.
- Violation of Privacy: OTPs are private credentials. A government official asking for one is overstepping legal boundaries.
- RTI Transparency: The applicant’s demand for the “taped conversation” is a masterstroke. Most feedback calls are recorded for quality purposes. If the police refuse to produce the audio, it suggests a lack of transparency that contradicts the spirit of the RTI Act 2005.
- Misleading Information: Under the RTI Act, providing “misleading information” is a punishable offense. If the Constable did indeed ask for the OTP, the PIO’s denial constitutes a secondary violation of the law.
6. The Verdict of the Appellate Authority
As of June 16, 2025, the First Appellate Authority (FAA), Somen Verma (SSP Mirzapur), disposed of the appeal by forwarding the IGRS Cell’s report. However, for the applicant, this is a “paper disposal.” The core question—Why was an OTP discussed at all?—remains buried under administrative jargon.
The case of Shri Yogi M.P. Singh serves as a warning. It highlights the “Digital Divide” being weaponized: where officials use their position of authority to guide citizens into giving up control of their digital feedback.
Conclusion: A Call for Audits
This dispute in Mirzapur shouldn’t be dismissed as a minor clerical disagreement. It is a symptom of “Metric Fixation.” To restore faith in the Jansunwai portal, there must be a strict prohibition on officials discussing OTPs with complainants.
Digital governance is meant to empower the citizen, not provide a backdoor for the bureaucracy to grade its own homework. Until the “taped feedback” is reviewed and accountability is fixed, the “satisfaction” reported on the portal will remain a questionable statistic.
What do you think? Should police personnel be allowed to guide citizens through the OTP process, or is this a clear conflict of interest?
Based on the documents provided and official UP Police records, here are the structured contact details and identifiers for the concerned public authorities in Mirzapur.
1. Concerned Public Authorities (Key Officials)
The following table provides the contact details for the primary officers mentioned in your appeal and the broader district hierarchy.
| Designation | Name | Mobile (CUG) | Email Address |
| SSP Mirzapur (First Appellate Authority) | Somen Verma | 9454400299 / 9125608556 | spmzr-up@nic.in |
| ASP Operation (Public Information Officer) | Om Prakash Singh | 9454401105 / 9125608556 | addlspopmzr@gmail.com |
| Addl. SP City | Nitesh Singh | 9454401104 | asp-city.mi@up.gov.in |
| CO City | Vivek Jawla | 9454401590 | co-city.mi@up.gov.in |
| Nodal Officer (RTI) | Om Prakash Singh | 9125608556 | aspopmzp@gmail.com |
2. Application & Appeal Identifiers
These are the specific tracking numbers from your provided case history for reference in any future correspondence with the State Information Commission.
- RTI Registration Number:
SPMZR/R/2025/60087(Filed: 09/04/2025) - RTI Appeal Registration Number:
SPMZR/A/2025/60022(Filed: 04/05/2025) - Appeal Disposal Date: June 16, 2025
- Reference Letter Number:
JSAP Appeal-28/2025/SPMZR/A/2025/60022
3. Essential Web Links
To monitor your status or file a secondary appeal to the State Information Commission, use the following official portals:
- UP RTI Online Portal: rtionline.up.gov.in (For filing appeals and checking status).
- UP State Information Commission: upsic.gov.in (For filing a Second Appeal if dissatisfied with the FAA’s decision).
- Jansunwai (IGRS) Portal: jansunwai.up.nic.in (To check the status of the underlying grievance that led to the OTP request).
- Mirzapur Police Official Contact List: uppolice.gov.in/mirzapur
4. Technical Helpdesk Details
If you encounter technical issues while accessing the RTI portal:
- Phone: 0522-7118629 (10:00 AM – 05:00 PM)
- Email: onlinertihelpline.up@gov.in
Note: The mobile number 9125608556 appears repeatedly in your documents as a common contact for both the PIO and FAA. This may be a dedicated office line for the RTI/IGRS cell.
Would you like me to draft a Second Appeal to the State Information Commission (SIC) based on the “Refusal of Information” or “Misleading Information” grounds identified in your case?
Facing a similar challenge? Share the details in the box below, and our team of experts will do their best to help.