The Uttar Pradesh RTI Act is a crucial piece of legislation that promotes transparency and accountability in governance. It empowers citizens to seek information from public authorities, thereby ensuring that government operations are open to scrutiny. This act plays a vital role in strengthening democratic processes and combating corruption.
The blog post argues that the Uttar Pradesh RTI Act is becoming ineffective, primarily because Public Information Officers (PIOs) and the State Information Commission are not collaborating to uphold the law, resulting in weakened enforcement and lost public trust.
The core issues highlighted are:
- Administrative Defiance: Local officers, like the Tehsildar of Lalganj, often ignore RTI requests and notices from the Commission. They do this without getting punished. This means rules are not being followed.
- The Commission often closes cases when appellants do not attend, failing to ensure that information is provided, thereby enabling non-compliance.
- The Penalty Gap: Even when the law requires officers to be fined for delays, the fines are almost never deducted from their pay. So, officers do not have a real reason to follow the law.
- The Transparency Paradox: The UPIC should make sure things are open and clear. But now, people say its processes and online portal are not clear.
The post’s central argument is that without strict enforcement of penalties and institutional accountability within the Commission, the RTI Act cannot fulfil its goal of empowering citizens.
Would you like me to help you draft a specific rejoinder or a follow-up letter to the First Appellate Authority regarding these grievances?
Uttar Pradesh RTI Act Under Siege: Is the Information Commission Shielding the Defiant?
The Uttar Pradesh RTI Act, based on the Right to Information Act of 2005, was designed to empower citizens as informed participants in democracy. The case of Sadhana Tiwari vs the PIO of Lalganj, Mirzapur, illustrates how a lack of responsiveness from authorities can undermine legal frameworks.
When the State Information Commission fails to punish officers who break the rules, it signals that the Uttar Pradesh RTI Act is not working as it should. The grievance began on September 9, 2024, when Sadhana Tiwari filed an RTI application (RegistrThe issue started on September 9, 2024, when Sadhana Tiwari filed an RTI request (Registration No. DMOMR/R/2024/60094) with the District Magistrate’s Office in Mirzapur. The request was sent to the Tehsildar of Lalganj. The law says the PIO must reply within 30 days. But, months later, the online status still says ‘REQUEST FORWARDED.’ This early silence is common—public authorities hope people give up and do not appeal further. The matter went to the Uttar Pradesh Information Commission (UPIC). On second appeal (Appeal No. S 09/A/0008/2025), State Information Commissioner Shakuntala Gautam led hearings in February, March, and May 2025.
On May 5, 2025, the Commission dismissed the appeal due to the appellant’s absence. While following procedural requirements, the main issue—the PIO’s prolonged failure to provide information—remained unresolved. Closing the case on attendance grounds meant the information was not delivered.
The “Impotence” of the Uttar Pradesh RTI Act Penalty Provisions
One criticism raised by the appellant is the Commission’s limited enforcement of penalties for PIOs. Section 20 of the RTI Act allows for financial penalties for unreasonable delays. However, even when penalties are imposed, authorities rarely recover them from officers’ salaries. The PIO of Lalganj did not respond to the Commission’s notices without apparent consequence.
Seeking Accountability: Who Watches the Uttar Pradesh RTI Act Watchdogs?
On June 26, 2025, Sadhana Tiwari filed a new RTI and appealed to the Information Commission. On June 26, 2025, Sadhana Tiwari filed a new RTI and appealed to the Information Commission. Now, the body that is supposed to keep others in check is being asked to explain why the May 5, 2025, order was not posted online.
Tehsildar of Lalganj for breaking the rules?
The appellant’s argument is straightforward: “Those who demand transparency must practice it thThe appellant’s point is simple: ‘Those who demand transparency must be transparent.’ If the Commission is not open about its own work, it cannot ask others to be open. Another calls the situation “Jungle Raj,” where the law exists only on paper. An officer’s status overshadows the supremacy of the law.
When a PIO ignores a Commission notice without consequences, the Uttar Pradesh RTI Act loses its effect. The Tehsildar of Lalganj withholds not just a file but a constitutional right. This dangerous precedent encourages public servants to evade citizens’ scrutiny.
| PIO (Tehsildar Lalganj) | Provide information within 30 days. | Complete silence; ignored Commission notices. |
| UP Information Commission | Enforce compliance and penalize delay. | Disposed of case on technicalities; failed to ensure data delivery. |
| The Citizen | Use RTI to ensure transparency. | Forced into a loop of endless appeals with no information. |
Conclusion: The Sadhana Tiwari case demonstrates urgent problems in Uttar Pradesh’s administration. The main argument is that the survival of the Uttar Pradesh RTI Act depends on the State Information Commission acting decisively, not simply forwarding notices. Transparency is the government’s obligation to its citizens. If the Commission fails to enforce accountability and impose fines on officers, the Uttar Pradesh RTI Act becomes ineffective. The fight for information in Mirzapur illustrates the broader challenge India faces in upholding the right to information.
Based on the documents and official directories, here are the application IDs and contact details for the concerned public authorities in the matter of Sadhana Tiwari vs PIO Lalganj.
1. Uttar Pradesh Information Commission (UPIC)1
The State Information Commission is the second appellate authority, and the hearing was conducted there.2
- Official Website: upsic.up.gov.in
- Case Details:
- Appeal Number: S 09/A/0008/2025
- Registration Number (New Appeal): UPICM/A/2025/600883
- Key Officials:
- State Information Commissioner (Room S-9): Smt. Shakuntala Gautam4
- First Appellate Authority (FAA): Shri Tejaskar Pandey (Deputy Secretary)5
- Mobile: 9415021746 / 945441XXXX
- Email: deputysecretary-upic[at]up[dot]gov[dot]in6
- Public Information Officer (PIO): Mumtaz Ahmad (Administrative Officer)
- Mobile: 9151804317
- Email: jansu-section[dot]upic[at]up[dot]gov[dot]in7
- Office Address: RTI Bhawan, 7/7A, Vibhuti Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow, UP – 226010.8
2. Office of the District Magistrate & Tehsil Lalganj (Mirzapur)
This is the primary public authority responsible for providing information regarding land/inheritance records.
- Official Website: mirzapur.nic.in
- RTI Registration Number: DMOMR/R/2024/60094 (Dated: 09/09/2024)9
- Concerned PIO (Lalganj):
- Designation: Tehsildar, Lalganj 10
- Mobile: 9454416818 / 9454416820
- Email: teh-lalganj.mi@up.gov.in
- Nodal Officers (District Level):
- District Magistrate (Mirzapur): Shri Pawan Kumar Gangwar (IAS) — 945441756711
- ADM (Finance & Revenue): Shri Ajai Kumar Singh — 945441763812
3. Online Portals for Tracking & Filing13
If you need to check the current status or file a follow-up, use these specific web links:
| RTI Online UP | rtionline.up.gov.in | To check status of Registration DMOMR/R/2024/60094. |
| UPIC CIS | upsic.up.gov.in/cispu/ | To track Second Appeal S 09/A/0008/2025. |
| Jansunwai | jansunwai.up.nic.in | To file a grievance against the PIO for non-compliance. |
Facing a similar challenge? Share the details in the box below, and our team of experts will do their best to help.