🚨 Justice Delayed, Information Denied: An Appellant’s Battle Against Non-Compliance in the UP Information Commission

Public officials must ensure transparency and accountability as enshrined in the Right to Information (RTI) Act. This act relies entirely on their compliance. In Uttar Pradesh, adhering to directives is mandatory. These directives come from a constitutional authority, such as the State Chief Information Commission. This requirement is not merely an administrative courtesy; it constitutes a legal duty.

The recent case of Mahesh Pratap Singh vs. various police functionaries in Mirzapur, Uttar Pradesh, highlights a concerning lapse in this system. This is a story of an appellant battling a complex fraud case. He is also contending with bureaucratic inertia. Additionally, he faces alleged defiance of a formal court order. This situation compelled him to approach the Commission again on the very day a compliance report was due.

---

The Underlying Crisis: A $3.5 Billion Fraud Allegation

To understand the appellant’s urgency, one must grasp the gravity of the underlying crime. Mr. Singh filed a complaint in FIR No. 291/23 at Police Station Kotwali Katra in Mirzapur. This case falls under Section 420 IPC and Sections 66C and 66D of the IT Act. It involves an alleged $350,000,000 (35 Crore INR) fraud executed by misusing his Permanent Account Number (PAN).

The appellant claims that the Tax Information Summary (TIS) alone identifies nearly 200 companies involved in these fraudulent transactions. Despite the existence of this digital evidence, Mr. Singh criticizes the investigation for what he terms “procrastination” and a lack of meaningful progress. He filed an RTI application to obtain crucial information about the investigation’s progress. This search took him to the State Information Commission (SIC).

Mr. Singh expresses frustration by questioning, “Do the Mirzapur Police lack the knowledge to handle the matter? A high constitutional office monitors the process under the constitutional functionaries.” This raises a deep-seated concern about the standard of investigation, particularly in a case involving massive financial fraud.

---

📜 The Commission’s Clear Order (June 10, 2025)

The State Information Commission, Court S-1, presided over by the Hon’ble Chief Information Commissioner of Uttar Pradesh, Shri R.K. Vishwakarma, recognized the merit of the appellant’s objections (filed on June 9, 2025). On June 10, 2025, the Commission issued a clear directive. It was a multi-part directive to the respondent party. It specifically named Shri Jitendra Kumar, Inspector, Police Station Kotwali Katra, Mirzapur.

The order was unequivocal, mandating five specific actions:

1. Inform the appellant about the progress report of the case.
2. Present the report of the action taken before the Commission on the next hearing date.
3. Properly dispose of the applicant’s allegation/objection dated June 9, 2025.
4. Provide revised information to the appellant.
5. Ensure the Commission is also informed about the revised information provided.

The Commission fixed the next hearing date for July 16, 2025, granting the police over a month to comply with these directions.

---

🛑 The Failure to Comply: The July 11th Pre-Emption

Anticipating the potential for last-minute or non-compliance, Mr. Singh sent a detailed email on July 11, 2025. He addressed it to the Senior Superintendent of Police (SSP), Mirzapur. He also sent a copy to the Commission’s court email. This email served as a crucial reminder and a warning.

In it, Mr. Singh highlighted that it was already July 11th. The Investigating Officer had not yet disposed of his representation. Additionally, they had not provided the directed information. He emphasized his constitutional right to object to any report disposing of his representation before the hearing date. He stated, “It is not only a legal right, but it is also the constitutional right of the appellant.” It is to submit the objection on the report... if any Lacunae found before the competent authority.”

This pre-emptive communication was an effort by the appellant made in good faith. It aimed to facilitate compliance and ensure a productive hearing on July 16th.

---

🗣️ The Non-Compliance Complaint (July 16, 2025)

The central issue materialized on the day of the hearing itself, July 16, 2025.

In a strongly worded submission to the Presiding Officer, the appellant alleged a complete disregard for the Commission’s mandate. Mr. Singh specifically stated that the concerned personnel did not provide the revised information. They essentially ignored the order of the Chief Information Commissioner.

He argued that the officers had failed in their “obligatory duty.” They did not abide by the order of the respected constitutional functionary “in letters and spirit.”

The appellant’s plea is no longer just about receiving information; it is about protecting the “dignity of the office” of the Commission itself. When an order passed by a constitutional body is openly flouted by public servants, it poses a significant challenge. Public servants meant to uphold the law undermine the institution’s authority. It also reduces the efficacy of the entire RTI framework.

---

The Way Forward: Protecting the Commission’s Authority

Mr. Singh’s case is a critical test of the State Information Commission’s enforcement power. The RTI Act provides clear provisions for penal action under Section 20. The Commission is allowed to impose a penalty of ₹250 per day. This continues until information is provided. The total penalty can reach a maximum of ₹25,000. The Commission can also recommend disciplinary action against the errant officer.

In cases of willful disobedience to a direct order to provide information and compliance reports, the Commission must act. It has a duty to invoke these powers decisively. Failure to act robustly against proven non-compliance essentially converts the Commission’s orders into mere requests. This renders the entire redressal mechanism toothless.

The appellant is seeking justice not just for the fraud he suffered, but for the principle of accountability. The Commission must now demonstrate that its orders are not optional. Public information officers cannot operate with impunity, especially when ordered to provide information. This is crucial regarding a serious, high-value crime that is already under scrutiny. Swift and appropriate action against the guilty personnel is crucial. This will restore faith in the process. It will also reinforce the constitutional mandate of the RTI Act in Uttar Pradesh.