🚨 Transparency Challenged: A Deep Dive into the RTI Response and Unanswered Queries

The Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005, stands as a cornerstone of Indian democracy. It is designed to foster transparency and accountability in public governance and aims for improvement in working of public authorities. It empowers citizens to demand information from public authorities, thereby bridging the chasm between the governed and the government. However, the application and response shared by Ms. Mahima Maurya with registration number SPMZR/R/2025/60128—filed with the Superintendent of Police, Mirzapur—highlights a common and disheartening reality. Public authorities frequently fail to provide complete, point-wise, and reasoned information. They often cite ongoing investigations or offer non-specific administrative remarks.

This analysis examines the specific questions posed by the applicant. It scrutinizes the adequacy and legal validity of the replies provided by the Public Information Officer (PIO). These replies are through the report submitted by the Sub-Inspector of Vindhyachal Police Station, Mirzapur.

---

🧐 Scrutiny of Information Sought vs. Information Provided

The original RTI application requested detailed, reasoned responses to six specific points concerning alleged anomalies, biased approaches, and procedural lapses in a police investigation related to a Non-Cognizable Report (NCR No. 104/2024).

1. Right to Reason: Exclusion from Police Records

The applicant sought the reason for not including her name in the Non-Cognizable Report (NCR). She also wanted to know why it was excluded from the Government Diary, despite being the prime victim. This question invokes the fundamental administrative law principle of the “Right to Reason.” It requires every public authority’s decision that affects a citizen to be supported by explicit, intelligible, and rational grounds.

• PIO’s Reply (Point 1): The response merely states that an NCR (No. 104/2024, under Section 115(2) and 352 of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS)) has already been filed against the opposition and that the investigation is underway as per the Chief Judicial Magistrate’s (CJM) order.
• Analysis: This reply is a material failure to address the query. It confirms the existence of the case. However, it completely avoids providing the reason for the applicant’s alleged exclusion from the initial records. The PIO, or the reporting authority, must specifically state why the victim’s name was not included. This applies even if the case was later registered. This silence denies the applicant’s right to know the basis of the administrative decision. It undermines the spirit of the RTI Act.

2. Legal Basis for Police Counseling Victims

The applicant cited an SP report. It stated she was advised to seek relief by filing a complaint in the Honourable Court. She requested the specific provisions of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS). She also asked for the provisions of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS). These provisions authorize police personnel to counsel victims in such a manner.

• PIO’s Reply (Point 2): The police report surprisingly claims something unexpected. It states that the applicant did not submit the application to the Honourable Court. Instead, the Police Station In-Charge Vindhyachal himself submitted the application. He obtained the order for investigation, which is currently underway.
• Analysis: This is a contradictory and deflective answer. It does not provide the requested legal provision (BNS/BNSS section). There is no authorization for the police to advise/counsel victims to approach the court instead of pursuing a complete investigation. Instead, the response tries to demonstrate the police’s diligence by claiming they approached the court themselves. While this action might be commendable, it fails to answer the specific legal query. It does not provide the authority for such “counseling” advice. This is especially concerning in a context where the police’s conduct is being questioned. The legal sanction for administrative advice remains unstated.

3. Medical Report Discrepancy and Failure to Conduct X-ray

The applicant noted the SP’s report mentioned a fracture from “injury elsewhere.” This was despite the medical report of the assault on 14.09.2024 showing no fracture. She sought the reason for not carrying out an X-ray Test.

• PIO’s Reply (Point 3): The report states the applicant’s medical report is “normal.” It justifies the lack of an X-ray by saying the doctor had not prescribed one. It then mentions that the applicant claims to have gotten an X-ray done in Prayagraj. The authorities promise that “further action will be taken” if a fracture is found during the ongoing investigation.
• Analysis: The reply is partially satisfactory but procedurally weak. The police are bound by the attending doctor’s prescription. However, the question seeks the reason why the investigating officer (IO) did not request the X-ray. This is especially puzzling when the victim complained of injury. Additionally, the subsequent SP report itself mentioned a fracture. The police relied solely on the initial “normal” medical report. They did not follow up proactively or re-examine when conflicting information arose. This conflicting information included a fracture mentioned in the SP report and the victim’s complaint. This indicates a potential lapse in the thoroughness of the investigation. The claim about the applicant’s self-procured X-ray is noted but does not explain the initial police/medical decision.

4. Reason for Not Carrying Out Verification Medical Test

The applicant sought the reason for not carrying out a next medical test. She wanted this for the verification of the earlier report. She argued her subsequent allegations were based on authentic evidence (diagnosis, test, and treatment).

• PIO’s Reply (Point 4): The response states that after a case is registered, the victim undergoes a medical checkup. This occurs in the concerned government hospital. Further tests are conducted in designated hospitals if the doctor provides a referral. Since the victim’s medical report was “normal,” no further test was done.
• Analysis: This is a reiteration of administrative procedure and a direct defense of the status quo established in Point 3. The reply effectively confirms that the police did not find it necessary to seek a follow-up test. They also did not pursue a verification test. This decision was based on the initial government medical report being “normal.” This is a definitive response. However, it hinges on the accuracy and completeness of the initial medical assessment. This is precisely what the applicant is challenging. The PIO has provided the reason (normal report, no referral). Whether this reason is justifiable in light of the applicant’s subsequent evidence remains a matter for the investigation. Judicial scrutiny, not the RTI response, will address this.

5. Police Response to Applicant’s Complaints

The applicant noted the SP report’s comment that she is “accustomed to giving the application again and again.” She asked the PIO to provide any complaint. In this complaint, the police should have submitted a report matching the grievance submissions.

• PIO’s Reply (Point 5): The report admits it is true that the applicant “keeps asking for application and RTI.” It then states: “Which is being discussed in her case. Action will be taken on the basis of merits and faults.”
• Analysis: This reply is highly subjective, non-specific, and administrative. While it confirms the applicant’s frequency of complaints, it fails to answer the specific question. It does not provide a single instance where the police report aligned with the grievance’s submission. The statement that the matter is “being discussed” offers no specific details. “Action will be taken” is another general administrative comment. These statements do not convey any information under the RTI Act. It reinforces the applicant’s perception of the police’s dismissive attitude. This perception is that they are “accustomed to giving the application” without providing the requested countervailing evidence.

6. Providing Evidence for “False Allegations”

The applicant referred to the SP report stating she is “making false allegations against concerned police personnel.” She requested the PIO to provide the specific false allegations. These were made without consistent supportive evidence.

• PIO’s Reply (Point 6): The response simply states that the police personnel are performing their duties with complete impartiality. The allegations against the police are “being investigated.”
• Analysis: This is an evasive response and a miscarriage of the PIO’s duty. The question demands the specific list of false allegations cited by the SP in their report to justify their conclusion. The PIO is obligated to provide this specific information from the police records. Instead, the PIO offers a generic defense of the police. The police are described as “performing their duties with complete impartiality.” The PIO also reiterates that the matter is under investigation. This response not only denies the specific information. It also implicitly confirms that the police have determined “false allegations” without providing documentary evidence to support that determination. This renders the RTI response incomplete and unreasoned.

---

⚖️ Conclusion: The Unfulfilled Promise of Transparency

The RTI application, in this case, serves as a mechanism not just for obtaining records. It also demands accountability and reasons for administrative actions and omissions. The PIO’s response, based on the Sub-Inspector’s report, is characterized by:

1. Evasion: Points 1, 5, and 6 completely fail to provide the requested reasons. They do not provide specific documentary details. Instead, they rely on blanket administrative statements.
2. Deflection: Point 2 attempts to prove the police’s helpfulness rather than providing the legal authority for their alleged counseling advice.
3. Procedural Reliance: Points 3 and 4 correctly cite standard medical protocol. However, they fail to address the need for a follow-up test. This is necessary due to conflicting evidence.

The applicant’s concern is a lack of good faith in providing information hampers the RTI Act’s goal of transparency. This worry appears to be, at least partially, validated by this response. The PIO has not provided the “six points information to the information seeker within stipulated 30 days” in substance.

The next logical step for Ms. Maurya, as per the law, is to file a First Appeal to the designated Appellate Authority. This must be done within the Police Department. The appeal should highlight the deficiencies and evasions. It should also address the non-supply of reasoned, specific information under Section 19(1) of the RTI Act, 2005.

Vindhyachal police did not register FIR of Mahima Maurya suffered injuries in assault

SHO Vindhyachal is not registering FIR of Mahima Maurya belonging weaker section

Arbitrary summoning to husband of Mahima Maurya by Vindhyachal police is not justified