Overview: Police Action in Prayagraj & RTI: Recent police actions have sparked significant public interest and discussion, particularly regarding law enforcement practices and safety measures. Additionally, the Right to Information (RTI) Act has been highlighted, allowing citizens to seek transparency and accountability from authorities regarding police operations and decisions in the region.

Police Action in Prayagraj & RTI: Holding Mauaima Police Station Accountable

This blog post analyses how citizens can use the RTI Act to demand police action in Prayagraj. Specifically, it examines an RTI application that Mr Yogi M P Singh filed regarding the alleged inaction of the Station House Officer (SHO) of Mauaima Police Station in Prayagraj District. The core issue concerns the follow-up action required after the Sub Divisional Magistrate (SDM) of Phoolpur issued a formal endorsement.

Applicant Name	Yogi M P Singh
Filing Date	27/06/2025
Registration No.	SSPPY/R/2025/60508
Public Authority	POLICE COMMISSIONER OFFICE PRAYAGRAJ
Concerned PIO	ACP PHOOLPUR
Current Status	RTI REQUEST RECEIVED as on 27/06/2025

Police Action in Prayagraj & RTI: When RTI Becomes a Tool for Police Action in Prayagraj

The RTI application is anchored on a sequence of administrative steps taken regarding a land or property matter involving residents of Village Sarajit Rai Urf Pure Bhawa:

1. Original Representation: A representation was submitted to the Sub Divisional Magistrate (SDM), Phoolpur, Prayagraj, on June 21, 2025, by Tej Bahadur Singh and others.
2. Lekhpal’s Site Report: The SDM endorsed this representation to the local Lekhpal (revenue official), Yatendra Tripathi, for site inspection. The Lekhpal submitted his report on June 22, 2025.
3. SDM’s Direction to Police: Based on the report, the SDM, Phoolpur, directed the matter to the Station House Officer (SHO), Mauaima, on June 23, 2025. The SDM instructed the SHO to take “appropriate action in the matter in accordance with the law.”

Consequently, the key concern around police action in Prayagraj is whether the Mauaima Police Station took any action following the SDM’s specific direction. This is precisely where the RTI Act becomes a powerful tool for citizens.

The Specific Information Sought (Point-Wise)

Accordingly, Mr Singh has requested three specific points of information from the Public Information Officer (PIO) at the Commissioner of Police, Prayagraj. He submitted this request within the statutory 30-day limit:

1. Action Taken by SHO Mauaima: A report detailing the complete action taken by the Station House Officer, Mauaima, in compliance with the order of the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Phoolpur.
2. Sub Inspector’s Name: The name of the Sub Inspector to whom the matter has been referred by the SHO Mauaima for taking action as directed by the SDM.
3. Reason for Inaction (If Applicable): If no action has been taken on the SDM’s direction, the PIO must provide the reason for this inaction. This requirement stems from Section 4(1)(d) of the RTI Act, 2005, which mandates administrative authorities to provide reasons for their decisions.

The Principle of ‘Right to Reason’ in RTI and Police Action in Prayagraj

A notable aspect of this RTI request is the explicit invocation of the ‘Right to Reason’ (Point 3). Notably, the applicant highlights that the Supreme Court has emphasised the right to reason as an indispensable part of a sound judicial and administrative system.

By demanding a reason for non-compliance, the applicant asserts the public’s right to transparency and accountability in administrative action. This is especially relevant in cases of police action in Prayagraj, where a superior body (SDM) has already directed a subordinate authority (SHO) to act. Furthermore, the RTI Act’s demand for reasoned decision-making is central to achieving ‘good governance.’

That is a two-part request. Here are the official contact details for the Police Commissioner’s Office, Prayagraj, and a summary of the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005.

Police Commissioner’s Office, Prayagraj – Key Contact Mr Singh filed the RTI application with the Police Commissioner’s Office (Police Commissionerate) in Prayagraj. Additionally, the details for the top office bearers appear below, along with the specific officer responsible for the circle where the concerned police station(Mauaima) is located:

Commissioner of Police	9454400248	0532-2641902	cp-pol[dot]ah[at]up[dot]gov[dot]in
DCP (Ganganagar) (The general area covering Phoolpur/Mauaima)	9454401015	–	sp-gangapar[dot]ah[at]nic[dot]in
ACP (Phulpur) (The Concerned PIO/Circle Officer mentioned in the RTI)	9454401281	–	co-phoolpur[dot]ah[at]nic[dot]in
Nodal Officer (Kuldeep Singh Gunawat – mentioned in the RTI)	9454401015	–	adlspgangaparaldpolice[at]gmail[dot]com

Note: The Nodal Officer, KULDEEP SINGH GUNAWAT (Mobile: 9454401015), also serves as the Deputy Commissioner of Police (DCP) Ganganagar/Gangapar. Therefore, a senior officer directly oversees the processing of RTIs in that jurisdiction.

---

Summary of the Right to Information (RTI) Act (Police Action in Prayagraj & RTI)

Understanding the RTI Act is essential for citizens seeking police action in Prayagraj and across India. The Right to Information (RTI) Act is a landmark piece of legislation that empowers citizens to access information held by public authorities, thereby promoting transparency and accountability in governance.

Key Objectives of the RTI Act

• Empowerment of Citizens: Gives citizens the right to question the government and hold it accountable.
• Transparency and Accountability: Promotes openness in the functioning of public authorities to reduce secrecy.
• Containing Corruption: Acts as an instrument to uncover and prevent corruption by granting access to records on government decisions, contracts, and spending.
• Informed Citizenry: Enables citizens to participate actively in a democratic process by being well-informed.

Who Can Request Information?

Any citizen of India.

What is ‘Information’?

“Information” is defined broadly to include any material in any form, such as:

• Records, documents, memos, and emails.
• Opinions, advice, press releases, and circulars.
• Logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, and models.
• Data held in electronic form.

The Request Process & Timeline

Request Target	A Public Information Officer (PIO) or an Assistant Public Information Officer (APIO) in a Public Authority.
Standard Response Time	30 days from the date of application
Life/Liberty Cases	48 hours from the receipt of the application.
Failure to Respond	If the PIO fails to respond within the stipulated time, the information is deemed to have been refused, and the applicant can file a First Appeal.

Obligations of Public Authorities Under RTI (Section 4) (Police Action in Prayagraj & RTI)

Public authorities have two main obligations:

1. Proactive Disclosure (Mandatory): Public authorities must proactively publish certain categories of information — such as organisational structure, powers, duties of officers, and budget — suo motu (on their own initiative). As a result, this reduces the need for citizens to file formal applications.
2. Obligation to Provide Reasons: Public authorities must provide reasons for their administrative or quasi-judicial decisions to the affected persons. Indeed, Mr Singh explicitly cited this obligation in his RTI application under Section 4(1)(d).

Exemptions (Section 8) (Police Action in Prayagraj & RTI)

The Act provides minimum exemptions for denying information. Specifically, these exemptions cover information that would prejudicially affect:

• The sovereignty, integrity, or security of India.
• The life or physical safety of any person.
• The process of investigation or Personal information where disclosure has no relationship to any public activity or interest. In such cases, releasing the information would cause an unwarranted invasion of the individual’s privacy. of the individual’s privacy.

This case is not an isolated incident of police inaction in Prayagraj. Saurabh Singh filed a petition, which the U.P.H.R.C. registered as case 1085/24/4/2023, initiating an enquiry into the misconduct of S.H.O. MauAima. Notably, the MauAima police refused to provide Saurabh Singh with information on the illegal liquor trade, further highlighting the need for RTI as a check on police action in Prayagraj.

Furthermore, instead of registering the victim’s F.I.R., S.H.O. MauAima, Prayagraj, implicated the victim and his father under various sections of the I.P.C. This conduct reflects a clear failure of the law and reinforces why RTI remains a vital mechanism for demanding accountable police action in Prayagraj.