Accountability in Governance: The Case of the “Missing” Advisory Issued by Home Ministry

In a functioning democracy, the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005 plays a crucial role. It acts as a vital bridge between the citizen and the state. Recent news about an advisory issued by home ministry further underscores the importance of transparency and accountability. However, a recent second appeal filed by activist Yogi M. P. Singh against the Uttar Pradesh Police highlights a troubling gap in administrative accountability and record-keeping regarding public safety.

The core of the dispute involves a decade-old advisory from the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA). It concerns the compulsory registration of FIRs. This is particularly important regarding crimes against women.

---

The Core Issue: A “Lost” Mandate for Justice i.e. Advisory Issued by Home Ministry not reached to police

On October 12, 2015, the Government of India issued a critical advisory to all State Chief Secretaries. It emphasized that police must register FIRs under Section 154 of the CrPC without discrimination.

Mr. Singh sought to track the implementation of this advisory within District Mirzapur. He requested:

• The names of officers who processed the advisory in the SP Office.
• A list of police stations and outposts where they circulated the advisory.
• The current status of compliance.

The Administrative “Run-Around”

The journey of this RTI application illustrates the bureaucratic complexity citizens often face:

1. Chief Secretary’s Office: Transferred the request to the Home Department.
2. Home Department: Transferred it to the Director General of Police (DGP) Office.
3. DGP Office: Finally transferred it to the Superintendent of Police (SP) Mirzapur.

State government officials reviewed the request at the highest levels. Despite this effort, the Public Information Officer (PIO) in Mirzapur eventually denied the information. The reason? Ten years ago, officials issued the advisory, and the Mirzapur Police Office “did not find it in the records.” This mismanagement suggests that the Home Ministry did not ensure the Advisory reached the Mirzapur police.

---

Key Arguments of the Appeal about Advisory Issued by Home Ministry

The appellant has raised several critical points in his second appeal to the Uttar Pradesh Information Commission:

• Systemic Failure: If a central advisory on mandatory FIR registration never reached the district level, it is a “blunder.” This oversight is a mistake by the Chief Secretary’s office. It also involves the Home Department.
• Arbitrary Denial: The appellant argues that the PIO and the First Appellate Authority (FAA) provided “misleading” grounds for withholding information. The appellant claims these grounds are flimsy.
• The “Right to Reason”: The appellant emphasizes that Supreme Court precedents require administrative systems to provide valid reasons. These systems must clarify their actions or inactions. When they state that a record is, “not found” regarding a standing policy on law enforcement, they demonstrate disregard. This constitutes an act of “insolence” toward the RTI Act.

---

Why This Matters

The advisory in question isn’t just paperwork; it is a safeguard for the rights of victims. When police departments claim that such directives are missing from their records, it raises serious questions:

1. How can a department ensure that it complies with national safety standards if it loses the directives?
2. Does the passage of ten years justify the disappearance of permanent policy records?

Relief Sought in matter of missing Advisory Issued by Home Ministry

The appellant wants the Information Commission to intervene. He describes it as “anarchy in the working of the public authority.” The appeal seeks to:

• Fix accountability for the missing records.
• Confirm whether someone forwarded the advisory to the subordinate police stations.
• Strengthen democratic values by penalizing the “wrongdoers” who provide misleading information.

---

Conclusion in matter about Advisory Issued by Home Ministry

This case serves as a reminder. The RTI Act depends on how well the departments it governs maintain their records. For citizens like Yogi M. P. Singh, this matter goes beyond just a document. It highlights the importance of making the law of the land visible. It also ensures that officials properly record and adhere to it at the ground level.

What do you think? Should administrative “loss of records” be a valid excuse for denying information on public safety policies?

To address your core question, we need to look at the structural breakdown of administrative accountability. You want to know how an advisory of such legal magnitude could not reach the SSP Office in Mirzapur. You are also curious about the social aspects involved. It seems improbable.

The advisory dated October 12, 2015, was not a mere suggestion. It was a directive to ensure compliance with the Supreme Court’s mandate in Lalita Kumari vs. Govt. of U.P. (which made FIR registration mandatory for cognizable offenses).

The failure of this document to appear in the Mirzapur records suggests one of three systemic breakdowns:

1. The “Bottleneck” at the State Secretariat (Advisory Issued by Home Ministry)

When the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) sends an advisory, it is addressed to the Chief Secretary.

• The Chain of Command: Chief Secretary. This is followed by Principal Secretary (Home), then Director General of Police (DGP). Finally, it reaches the Superintendent of Police (SSP/SP).
• The Issue: If the PIO claims it is “not found,” it suggests the document might be “shelved” at the Secretariat. Alternatively, it might be at the DGP Headquarters. This could happen without being formally circularized to the districts. Under the RTI Act, this is a “Section 5(4) and 5(5)” issue. The PIO should have sought assistance from the higher offices where the record originated.

2. Violation of “Standing Order” Protocols

In police administration, high-level advisories regarding legal procedures (like FIR registration) are typically converted into Standing Orders or Circulars.

• Retention Rules: According to the Police Manual and Record Retention Schedules, circulars affect the “instruction and guidance of the Police.” They are often kept in a Standing Order Book. These documents serve an essential role in providing instruction and guidance to the Police.
• The Breakdown: Claiming a 10-year-old policy is “lost” is legally weak. Policy directives that govern how a police station functions are called Standard Operating Procedures. They are considered permanent or long-term records. This is unlike daily diaries which may be destroyed after a few years.

3. Deliberate “Administrative Silence”

The appellant’s most striking point is the “Right to Reason.” If the advisory did not reach Mirzapur, the public authority must explain the reasons it was intercepted. They also must address why it was ignored.

• Anarchy in Records: The Home Ministry wants to protect women via mandatory FIRs. If these efforts are lost in transit, a “legal vacuum” is created. In this vacuum, local police can claim ignorance of national mandates.

---

Critical Discrepancies to Highlight in your Appeal

Stage	Expected Action	Actual Status in your Case
MHA to Chief Secretary	Formal Receipt & Logging	Confirmed (Dated 12 Oct 2015)
CS to DGP UP	Direction for State-wide Circular	Unverified/Missing
DGP to SSP Mirzapur	Issuance of District-level Order	Claimed “Not Found”
SSP to Police Stations	Training & Compliance	Likely Never Happened

The Path Forward

The PIO’s reply that the record is “not found” indicates a deemed refusal. This scenario occurs if they made no active effort. They should have retrieved it from the transferring authority (DGP Office).

The documents from the Senior Superintendent of Police (SSP) Office, Mirzapur explain the issue. The State Information Commission provided documents to serve as the basis of this explanation. They outline the specific reason why this advisory did not “reach” the office. These documents contain detailed information. They explain why the advisory was not received. The documents from both offices form the basis of this explanation. The authorities provided legal justifications for this issue.

1. Official Findings: The “Reference Register” Gap

The core explanation provided by the police is a lack of physical record of receipt¹. According to the report from the Correspondence Branch (Patra Vyavahar Shakha) of the Police Office, Mirzapur:

• Search of 2015 Records: We conducted a review of the reference registers for the year 2015.
• Result: The Ministry of Home Affairs sent the advisory on October 12, 2015. It concerned the mandatory registration of FIRs under Section 154 CrPC. The office did not find that it had received the advisory.
• Downstream Impact: Because the office claims it never received the document, it maintains that:
  • No specific employee can receive the package as the recipient.
  • They never forwarded the advisory to any police stations (Thanas) in the district.
  • Authorities never forwarded the advisory to any police outposts (Chowkis)6666.

2. The Legal Shift: From CrPC to BNS in the matter about Advisory Issued by Home Ministry

In a significant technical update provided on August 12, 2025, the Public Information Officer (PIO) introduced a new legal hurdle regarding your fifth point of inquiry777:

• Abolition of CrPC: The PIO stated that Section 154(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) had a role. It previously provided for the mandatory registration of FIRs. However, the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) came into effect on July 1, 2024⁸.
• Current Status: The authorities argue that none of the sections of the CrPC, 1973, currently apply9. This serves as a technical justification. It explains why they treat older advisories based on the CrPC as obsolete in the current legal framework10.

3. Commission’s Conclusion on “Sufficiency”

The State Information Commissioner, Shakuntala Gautam, disposed of your previous appeal (S09/A/1015/2025) on August 13, 2025, based on the following^11111111:

• Appellant Absence: The Commissioner noted that you did not appear for the hearings on July 25. You also did not attend on August 13. Furthermore, you did not file an objection to the information provided.
• “Clear and Material” Information: The Commission ruled that the PIO’s statement is “clear and material”. It explains that the record simply does not exist in their 2015 register. (suspasht evam saarvaan)¹³.
• Final Order: The police explicitly stated that they never received the document. As a result, they never circulated it. The Commission found no grounds to keep the appeal pending and disposed of it14.

---

Analysis for your Second Appeal

The documents reveal a crucial tactic by the authorities. They use a “Negative Fact” to block further inquiry. They claim they never received the document.

Shifting your focus to the Central Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) is a strategic move. The Mirzapur Police state that they have no record of the advisory, but the MHA’s own documentation confirms that they issued this directive, specifically addressing it to the highest levels of the state government.

Here is the critical information regarding the MHA’s role and the advisory’s journey:

1. The Official Mandate (MHA Advisory)

The Ministry of Home Affairs issued the advisory on October 12, 2015 (No. 15011/91/2013-SC/ST-W), titled “Advisory on no discrimination in compulsory registration of FIRs- Regarding”.

• Recipient: The Chief Secretaries of all State Governments and UT Administrations received it explicitly.
• Core Instruction: The MHA directed that all States must ensure “utmost promptness” in registering FIRs. This applies to all individuals without discrimination. This directive specifically cites Section 154(1) of the CrPC.
• State Action Required: The advisory (in paragraph 6) specifically instructed State Home Departments to take action. They must direct their DGPs/IGPs to issue necessary instructions to all police officers. These instructions should be incorporated into their training.

2. Discrepancies in the Mirzapur Police Response

The documents you provided from the Mirzapur SSP office reveal a breakdown in this “State-to-District” transmission:

• Failure to Trace: The Mirzapur police state that they did not find the advisory after checking their 2015 “Reference Register.”
• Lack of Communication: They admit that local police stations or outposts did not receive it. This occurred because they allegedly did not send it.
• Contradiction: You noted that the Chief Secretary transferred your RTI to the Home Department. The Home Department then transferred it to the DGP, and finally, the DGP sent it to Mirzapur. This transfer chain itself implies that the higher authorities recognize the advisory as part of the district’s operational mandate.

3. Key Points for Your Appeal to the Commission

When you approach the Information Commission, you can highlight these specific failings of the Central-State-District link:

• Administrative Negligence: If the MHA sends the advisory to the Chief Secretary, MHA’s public records confirm it. Then, the failure of that document to reach the SSP Mirzapur constitutes a “blunder” in administrative tracking.
• The “Zero FIR” Mandate: The MHA advisory explicitly requires authorities to register a “Zero FIR”. They must then transfer it under Section 170 of the CrPC. This obligation exists regardless of whether a specific 2015 letter is in a local file.
• Section 166A Liability: The MHA advisory reminds states of important details. Section 166A of the IPC prescribes up to two years of imprisonment. This applies to officers who fail to register an FIR for specific cognizable offences.

Potential Next Step

Would you like me to help you draft a formal letter to the Ministry of Home Affairs (Women Safety Division)? The letter will ask the Uttar Pradesh Chief Secretary’s office for a “Tracking Report.” It will also request an “Acknowledgment of Receipt” for this specific 2015 advisory. This can provide the evidence needed to prove that the state received the document.

To address your focus on the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA), here are the web links you need. They are essential for understanding the advisory for compulsory FIR registration. You will also find contact details for filing an RTI. Follow-up on the matter using these resources.

1. Online RTI Filing & Tracking

• Official RTI Portal: rtionline.gov.in. This is the primary portal for filing new applications or first appeals to Central Ministries.
• View Application Status: rtionline.gov.in/viewstatus. You will need your Registration Number and Email ID to check the progress of your request.
• RTI Helpline: 011-24622461.
• Technical Support Email: helprtionline-dopt@nic.in.

2. Key MHA Contact Details (Women Safety Division)

Since your inquiry concerns an advisory on crimes against women, the Women Safety Division is the most relevant department.

Designation	Name	Contact Number	Email Address
Director (Women Safety)	Mayank Mishra	011-24010076	director-ws@gov.in
Joint Secretary (Coordination)	Shri Anil Subramaniam	011-24010030	jscpg-mha@nic.in
Nodal CPIO (MHA)	Central Public Info. Officer	011-23092011	N/A (Address: North Block, New Delhi)
Section Officer (RTI-I)	D. S. Sachdeva	011-23094155	ds.sachdeva61@nic.in
Section Officer (RTI-II)	Leena Sarin	011-23093485	N/A

3. Application Details for New Filing (Advisory Issued by Home Ministry)

• Public Authority to Select: Ministry of Home Affairs.
• Application Fee: ₹10 (waived for BPL category with valid certificate).
• Postal Address (for Offline Filing): Central Public Information Officer, Ministry of Home Affairs, North Block, New Delhi – 110001.
• Payment Mode (Offline): Indian Postal Order or Demand Draft payable to “Accounts Officer, Ministry of Home Affairs“.

4. Important Division-Specific Contacts

If you need to contact specific divisions related to the advisory’s distribution:

• Police-I Division: Handles matters related to general police administration and RTI orders.
• Coordination-II Section: Often manages the receipt and dispatch of high-level advisories.
  • Nodal Officer (Public Grievances): Shri Arindam Kumar Mitra (Deputy Secretary), dircoord-mha@nic.in, 011-23438061.