🚨 Accountability Issues in UP Grievance: Denial of Information and Accountability in Grievance Redressal

This blog post analyses the core issues raised in the RTI Appeal filed by Yogi M. P. Singh regarding the alleged arbitrary handling of a public grievance and the subsequent denial of information by the Senior Superintendent of Police (SSP) Office, Mirzapur, Uttar Pradesh. One particular concern is the presence of Accountability Issues in UP Grievance processes, highlighted by this case.

---

1. The Core Grievance and Alleged “Bad Practice” (Accountability Issues in UP Grievance)

The appellant’s initial grievance centred on the non-compliance with a court order by the Lekhpal (revenue official) of Village Babura. The critical issue is the alleged “bad practice” of the Uttar Pradesh government (specifically the SSP office in this case) in deliberately forwarding the grievance to inappropriate public authorities—the police department—instead of the concerned revenue/magisterial authority (Sub Divisional Magistrate/Lekhpal).

• Appellant’s View: The Sub Divisional Magistrate, Sadar, should have addressed the grievance regarding the Lekhpal’s non-compliance with a court order. However, transferring it to the police department, where the Circle Officer, City, investigates, appears arbitrary. This action seems aimed at generating an “inconsistent report” and preventing genuine redressal of the issue.

---

2. Denial of Information Under the RTI Act, 2005

The appellant filed an RTI application seeking specific information to fix accountability and understand the decision-making process, leading to the First Appeal after the Public Information Officer (PIO) provided allegedly incomplete or misleading information. (Accountability Issues in UP Grievance)

A. Questioning the Jurisdictional Transfer (Points 1 & 2) (Accountability Issues in UP Grievance)

Information Sought	PIO’s Response	Appellant’s Contention/Issue
Point 1: Name and designation of the staff who concluded the matter “concerns the working of the police.” (Right to Reason)	PIO: The investigating officer ascertains if the case is related to the police or any other department.	Contention: This fails to provide the specific name, designation, and the reason for concluding it concerns the police, especially when the grievance explicitly mentioned the Sub Divisional Magistrate.
Point 2: Reason for not forwarding the matter to the Sub Divisional Magistrate (SDM), Sadar.	PIO: It is not mandatory to send a letter to the concerned person (revenue department) even if the matter is related to revenue.	Contention: The PIO failed to provide the reason for not forwarding it to the appropriate authority (SDM), which is critical given the nature of the original complaint (Lekhpal/court order compliance).

B. Seeking Action Taken on Non-Compliance (Points 3 & 4) (Accountability Issues in UP Grievance)

Information Sought	PIO’s Response	Appellant’s Contention/Issue
Point 3: Action taken by the Investigation Officer to ensure the compliance of the court order.	PIO: Compliance of the court order is done by the concerned officer to whom instructions are sent.	Contention: Action taken was not provided. The PIO gave a general statement, not the specific action to ensure the court order’s compliance.
Point 4: Steps taken by Vivek Jawla, Circle Officer City, to curb anarchy due to 6 months of non-compliance of the court order by the Lekhpal.	Contention: The grievance was not redressed; the PIO’s response focuses on preventive action (related to peace and order, i.e., police work) rather than compliance with the court order (the core of the grievance), misleading the appellant.	Contention: The grievance was not redressed; the PIO’s response focusses on preventive action (related to peace and order, i.e., police work) rather than compliance with the court order (the core of the grievance), misleading the appellant.

C. Educational Qualification and Posting Details (Point 5) (Accountability Issues in UP Grievance)

Information Sought	PIO’s Response	Appellant’s Contention/Issue
Point 5: Educational qualification and posting details of Vivek Jawla, Circle Officer City, from the date of joining service.	PIO: Personal information not payable under Section 8(1)(j).	Contention: Information on judicial officers’ academic records and postings is public. The PIO’s cryptic denial, citing Section 8(1)(j), is argued to be an attempt to “conceal their anarchy” and is against the spirit of the RTI Act, especially when the officer’s performance in handling the grievance is in question.

• Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act allows the denial of “information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual.

---

3. Key Issues for the First Appellate Authority (FAA) (Accountability Issues in UP Grievance)

The First Appellate Authority, Somen Verma (SSP, Mirzapur), must address the following points in the appeal:

1. Justification for Transfer/Jurisdiction: Did the initial transfer of a grievance concerning Lekhpal’s non-compliance of a court order to the police department (instead of revenue/magisterial authority) constitute a deliberate bad practice? The FAA must ascertain the rationale and direct the PIO to provide the specific officer’s details who made that decision. (Right to Reason)
2. Completeness of Information: Did the PIO provide complete and truthful information regarding the action taken to ensure court order compliance? Or was the response misleadingly focused on general “preventive action”?
3. Correct Use of RTI Exemption (Section 8(1)(j)): Is the blanket denial of the educational qualification and posting history of a public officer, whose official conduct is under scrutiny, justified under the “personal information” exemption? The FAA needs to consider the balance between privacy and public interest/accountability, especially given the appellant’s argument about the availability of similar information for judicial officers. (Accountability Issues in UP Grievance)

The appellant requests the information and demands stern action against the Assistant PIO for allegedly mocking the RTI process.

The most relevant official government portals for the information you’ve provided are:

1. 📢 Uttar Pradesh RTI Online Portal (Accountability Issues in UP Grievance)

This is the official portal for filing and tracking RTI applications and First Appeals in the departments of the Government of Uttar Pradesh (excluding the High Court and subordinate courts).

• Portal Name: RTI Online :: An initiative of Uttar Pradesh Government
• Purpose: To file and track RTI requests and First Appeals.
• Relevant for your case: I filed the RTI Appeal with Registration Number SPMZR/A/2025/60031 here.
• Web Link Reference: https://rtionline.up.gov.in/ (Use the View Status option on the portal to track the progress of the appeal.)

2. 🗂️ Jansunwai – Samadhan Portal (Grievance Redressal)

The government created this portal as an integrated system for registering and tracking public grievances. We would have registered your initial complaint here, as someone allegedly forwarded it arbitrarily. (Accountability Issues in UP Grievance)

• Portal Name: Jansunwai – Samadhan (IGRS)
• Purpose: To register, track, and send reminders/feedback on public grievances.
• Relevant tracked via this system. The officer’s action report cited in the RTI response likely originated from the closing of this original grievance file.
• Web Link Reference: https://jansunwai.up.nic.in/ (You would need the original Grievance ID (Reference Number) to track its status and forwarding details.)

---

In summary: (Accountability Issues in UP Grievance)

• For the Appeal Status (SPMZR/A/2025/60031): Use the RTI Online Portal.
• For the Original Grievance Details (Forwarding, Action Taken): Use the Jansunwai – Samadhan Portal.

Would you like me to try and find the Jansunwai Grievance Registration Number that corresponds to your RTI application details?