When a Public Information Officer withholds asset disclosure, administrative compliance falters, and public accountability suffers.

This post uncovers how a Public Information Officer hides asset disclosure, focusing on the misuse of “privacy” that obstructs transparency. The argument rests on three pillars:

• Compliance versus Content: The law distinguishes between requests for officers’ private asset details and requests for records confirming compliance with disclosure requirements. In some cases, a Public Information Officer hides asset disclosure documents from the public.
• The “No Record” Fallacy: A district office cannot claim it “has no information” simply because officers upload data to a central portal (SPARROW). Moreover, the District Magistrate carries a supervisory duty. That duty requires ensuring subordinates comply with government mandates. Consequently, the records of that supervision remain public.
• Evasion Erodes Trust: When a Public Information Officer (PIO) uses technicalities to avoid confirming which officers follow anti-corruption rules, that evasion undermines the RTI Act. Furthermore, it signals a dangerous lack of accountability within the Mirzapur Collectorate.

Public Information Officer Hides Asset Disclosure: Transparency Under Siege in the Mirzapur Collector’s Office. In Indian governance, many hail the Right to Information (RTI) Act as the “sunlight” that disinfects the corridors of power. However, the ongoing case of Shri Yogi M.P. Singh vs Public Information Officer (PIO), Mirzapur tells a different story. Here, a Public Information Officer hides asset disclosure behind opaque walls of bureaucratic evasion. In doing so, officials block the very sunlight the Act was designed to let in.1let in.1

The core of this dispute lies in a simple yet profound question: Should the public know whether civil servants are complying with government mandates to disclose their assets?

---

The Genesis: A Mandate for Don, November 16, 2021, the Government of Uttar Pradesh issued a directive (Government Order No. 1/114964/2021). Subsequently, the government reinforced this directive in early 2024. Under this order, all Provincial Civil Service (PCS) officers must disclose their annual movable and immovable property details on the SPARROW portal (Smart Performance Appraisal Report Recording). The objective was clear: curb corruption and hold public officeholders accountable for their wealth. To that end, the appellant, Yogi M.P. Singh, filed an RTI to identify which officers had complied with this order. Importantly, he did not seek private bank statements. Instead, he sought proof of administrative compliance. of administrative compliance.

---

How the Public Information Officer Hides Asset Disclosure: The “Personal Information” Shield

The Public Information Officer at the Mirzapur Collectorate consistently denies the appeal using two main arguments. First, the PIO claims that because officers upload their property data to the central SPARROW portal using personal credentials, the district office does not possess compliance records. Second, the PIO contends that property disclosure details are “personal information” and are therefore exempt from disclosure under the RTI Act.

1. The PIO maintains that officers upload data directly to the SPARROW portal using their personal IDs and passwords. For this reason, the district office allegedly does not keep any record of which officers have filed their disclosures.
2. The PIO further argues that the details of officers’ property disclosures amount to “personal information” and are, as such, exempt from release under the RTI Act.

Deconstructing the Evasion

This defence is a classic bureaucratic manoeuvre — a textbook case of how a Public Information Officer hides asset disclosure by relabelling public compliance data as “personal information.” By doing so, the PIO diverts attention from the officers’ public duty. Furthermore, the claim that the District Magistrate’s office holds “no record” of compliance exposes a breakdown in administrative oversight. Specifically, if the district head does not know whether subordinates comply with anti-corruption mandates, that ignorance points to a significant lapse in governance.

---

The Appellant’s Stand: Compliance is Public, Not Private

Yogi M.P. Singh’s rebuttal to the Information Commission is both logical and legally grounded. He clarifies that he does not seek the details of the assets themselves — details that might arguably fall under privacy. Instead, he requests:

• The list of names of those who complied.
• The list of names of those who defaulted.
• Evidence of actions taken by the District Magistrate against those who ignored the government order.

As the appellant rightly points out, “Seeking information concerning the compliance of a government order is not seeking personal property details.”

The Role of the State Information Commission

Honourable State Information Commissioner Shakuntala Gautam currently presides over the case. The proceedings highlight the deep frustrations of the RTI process. Despite multiple hearings, the PIO continues to deliver the same canned response. Meanwhile, the appellant battles health issues — including hyperglycemia worsened by the stress of these proceedings — and has struggled to attend video conferences.

The Commission directed the PIO to resolve objections point-by-point. Nevertheless, the PIO’s latest communication reveals a desire to dismiss the case entirely. The stated grounds: “information was already provided” — even though that information was, in reality, a refusal to provide actual data.

---

Why This Matters: The “Sparrow” in the Coal Mine

The SPARROW portal was designed to bring the executive branch into the digital age of accountability. However, if a PIO successfully argues that “digital filing” equals “no local record,” that argument creates a dangerous precedent. In effect, it would shield any information moved to a central server from local RTI inquiries — creating a “black hole” of public accountability.

The gravity of a PIO hiding asset disclosure deserves emphasis.

When public servants refuse to confirm whether they declared their assets, they foster an environment of suspicion. Transparency does not merely expose bad actors — it builds trust in the good ones. Yet by evading this information, the Mirzapur Collectorate inadvertently signals that compliance is optional and oversight is nonexistent.

---

Conclusion: The Path Forward

The Uttar Pradesh Information Commission faces a crucial test. Every time a PIO conceals asset disclosure, it affirms bureaucratic resistance. Upholding this appeal would reinforce the principle that the Right to Information prevails over attempts to obscure compliance.

As this case moves toward its next hearing, the focus must remain on the Government Order dated 4th January 2024. Ultimately, the public has every right to know whether state servants follow the state’s own laws.

---

What can you do?

Take action for transparency now: File RTIs on the status of public projects in your area and insist on timely updates.

• Boost awareness and empower others: Regularly read and share State Information Commission decisions to build collective knowledge.
• Demand change now: Urge authorities to make compliance reports public on all government websites, making transparency non-negotiable.

To help you follow up on your case or file new objections, refer to the official contact details below for the relevant public authorities.

1. Uttar Pradesh Information Commission (UPIC) (Public Information Officer Hides Asset )

The primary body hearing your appeal.

• Address: RTI Bhawan, 7/7A, Vibhuti Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh.
• Web Link: upsic.up.gov.in
• Case Tracking (CATS): Appeal Tracking System
• Phone: 0522-27249301
• General Email: webmaster-upic@up.gov.in2
• PIO Email (UPIC): jansu-section.upic@up.gov.in3

---

2. District Magistrate (Collectorate) Mirzapur (Public Information Officer Hides Asset )

The office from which you are seeking information.

• District Magistrate: Shri Pawan Kumar Gangwar (I.A.S.)5
• Address: Collectorate Compound, Mirzapur, UP 231001.6
• Web Link: mirzapur.nic.in
• Mobile: 94544175677
• Landline: 05442-252480 / 05442-2574008
• Email: dmmir@nic.in9

---

3. Public Information Officer (PIO) – Mirzapur Collectorate

Specifically responsible for handling your RTI application.10

• Designation: Public Information Officer, Collectorate Mirzapur. 11
• Mobile (General Administration): 9454416809 (City Magistrate)
• Note: The PIO is often the Assistant Collector or City Magistrate; you can address mail to “The PIO, Collectorate Compound, Mirzapur, Pin-231001.”12

---

4. SPARROW Portal Helpdesk (Public Information Officer Hides Asset )

Regarding the technicality of the property disclosure portal.

• URL: sparrow-pcs.up.gov.in
• National Helpdesk Phone: 011-24653220 (DoPT Helpline)
• Support Email: ssd2.eoffice-nic@nic.in or iss@nic.in (General Sparrow queries)

---

Important Application Details for Your Case:(Public Information Officer Hides Asset )

Based on your provided documents, ensure you cite these specific IDs in all communications:

• Application ID: A-20240401203
• Appeal Number: S09/A/0728/2024
• Hearing Room: S-9 (Hon’ble Shakuntala Gautam)
• Web Link for Online Hearing: UPIC Online Hearing Link

---

Would you like me to draft a “Rejoinder” (reply) to the PIO’s latest letter dated May 21, 2025, specifically challenging their claim that “no record is available” at the district level?