This is a detailed record of a second appeal filed under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005, before the Uttar Pradesh Information Commission (UPIC).(Current Affairs at PIO Commissionerate)

The core issue presented in this document is the appellant’s objection to the denial of information by the Public Information Officer (PIO), specifically arguing that:

1. The PIO’s denial was improper and failed to comply with the UPIC’s previous order to consider the appellant’s objection. This situation highlights some of the current affairs at PIO Commissionerate.
2. The PIO provided inconsistent reasons for denial: citing the information as unclear and also invoking the exemption under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.
3. The PIO should have responded via official email (paperless work) rather than registered post.

Here is a structured blog post based on the provided document, focusing on these core issues.

---

Current Affairs at PIO Commissionerate: Navigating the RTI Second Appeal and Information Denial

Introduction: The Right to Information Act in Action

The Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005, empowers citizens to seek transparency from public authorities. However, current affairs at PIO Commissionerate offices across Uttar Pradesh reveal that procedural hurdles frequently lead to Second Appeals. A striking example is Yogi M P Singh vs PIO, Police Commissionerate, Prayagraj, before the Uttar Pradesh Information Commission (UPIC). This post examines the main points of dispute.

The UPIC registered the case as A-20240100094 with File Number S10/A/0556/2024. It reflects current affairs at PIO Commissionerate level and highlights common challenges appellants face — namely, improper denial of information, procedural non-compliance, and the push for paperless governance.

The Procedural Context of the Appeal

The appellant, Mr Yogi M P Singh, filed a Second Appeal under Section 19(3) of the RTI Act. He took this step because the Public Information Officer (PIO) either failed to respond adequately or did not respond at all.

• Case Details:
  • Appellant: Yogi M P Singh
  • Respondent/PIO: Assistant Commissioner of Police (ACP), Prayagraj Commissionerate
  • Commission Court: S-10, UPIC
  • Previous Hearing Date: The PIO was directed to consider the appellant’s written statement/objection (emailed on 25th April 2025) for the next hearing on 17th July 2025.
  • Current Objection Date: 21st July 2025 (sent via email).

Issue 1: The PIO’s Contradictory Denial

A key contention in the appellant’s submission is the PIO’s conflicting reasons for denial, using both:

Argument A: Information is ‘Not Clear’

For certain points (3, 4, 5), the PIO stated that the applicant had not clarified the information sought or the specific year.

Argument B: Claiming Exemption under Section 8(1)(j)

For other points (7, 8), the PIO claimed the information sought was “not admissible under Section 8(1)J of the Right to Information Act, 2005.”

• The appellant argues that if the PIO found parts of the information request unclear, it was illogical to simultaneously invoke the Section 8(1)(j) exemption. For an exemption to apply, the information must first be understood clearly. Thus, claiming both lack of clarity and legal exemption is inconsistent.

If the information was unclear, the PIO could not have assessed whether it fell under Section 8(1)(j), which pertains to personal information unrelated to public interest or privacy.

Issue 2: Non-Compliance and Paperless Governance

The appellant also raised important points about procedural compliance and the move toward paperless governance at PIO Commissionerate offices. (Current Affairs at PIO Commissionerate)

1. The UPIC directed the PIO to address the appellant’s emailed objection. However, the PIO’s denial letter dated 15th July 2025 did not address this. The appellant also requested an official email instead of registered post. This request aligns with the state’s paperless orders and the Supreme Court’s guidance in Writ Petition (Civil) 360/2021. It would also help reduce costs.

Issue 3: Deflecting Responsibility

For requests under points 2 and 6, the PIO deflected responsibility. They directed the applicant to approach the Transport Branch directly. The PIO claimed that the information was available there.

The RTI Act requires the PIO to transfer such requests under Section 6(3). The PIO must also provide the information, rather than simply redirecting the applicant.

Conclusion: Seeking Accountability and Clarity (Current Affairs at PIO Commissionerate)

This case highlights the essential role Information Commissionsplay in holding PIOs accountable for incomplete or legally flawed denials. The appellant seeks a legal response to his email. He is challenging the PIO’s contradictory use of exemption clauses. Additionally, he is addressing the failure to adopt paperless communication. The commission’s will be decisive. The UPIC must determine whether to:

1. Uphold the appellant’s objection regarding the contradictory grounds of denial.
2. Issue directions to the PIO on following paperless guidelines.
3. Direct the PIO to provide the complete and correct information.

That is a very good suggestion.I will provide a breakdown of the relevant RTI sections. I will also discuss the legal implications of the PIO’s contradictory denial. Diagrams will illustrate the legal process and the exemption clause.

Deconstructing the RTI Legal Challenge: A Deep Dive

This case addresses how PIOs sometimes misapply RTI exemptions. The appellant, Yogi M P Singh, challenges the PIO’s contradictory reasons for denial. This challenge is made under Section 19(3), which pertains to the appeal process. It also addresses Section 8(1)(j), which is the personal information exemption. (Current Affairs at PIO Commissionerate)

---

1. The Appellate Jurisdiction: Section 19(3) (Current Affairs at PIO Commissionerate)

The appellant filed the case as a Second Appeal under Section 19(3) of the RTI Act — the final statutory recourse available to an aggrieved applicant.

• Section 19(1) – First Appeal: An applicant dissatisfied with the PIO’s response (or lack thereof) files a First Appeal with the departmental First Appellate Authority (FAA).
• Section 19(3) – Second Appeal: If the applicant is still aggrieved by the decision of the FAA, they can file a Second Appeal with the respective State Information Commission (SIC) (in this case, UPIC) or the Central Information Commission (CIC).
• Power of the Commission (UPIC/SIC): Under Section 19(8), the Commission has significant powers, including the authority to:
  • Order the provision of information in a particular form.
  • Require the Public Authority to compensate the appellant for any loss suffered.
  • Impose penalties on the PIO (under Section 20) for a refusal to receive an application, refusal to provide information without reasonable cause, or knowingly giving incorrect, incomplete, or misleading information.

The appellant has submitted a representation to the SIC on the progress of his Second Appeal. This development adds to the growing body of current affairs at PIO Commissionerate level. Moreover, the appellant argues that the PIO’s most recent action constitutes an unjustified denial that the Commission must correct or penalise.

---

2. The Contradictory Denial: Section. The appellant’s key legal objection is the contradiction in the PIO’s response. The Contradictory Denial: Section 8(1)(j)

The appellant’s main legal objection challenges contradictions in the PIO’s response. Under the Act, any denial must fall strictly within Sections 8 or 9 and be supported by clearly stated legal grounds. Disclosure unrelated to public activity or interest, or that would cause unwarranted invasion of privacy, is not required.

However, this exemption is subject to a crucial proviso:2

“Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.”3

The Legal Flaw in the PIO’s Response (Current Affairs at PIO Commissionerate)

Information Not Clear (Points 3, 4, 5)	“The details… are not clear,” or “it has not been clarified as to which year…”	If the request is truly unclear, the PIO’s duty (under Section 6(3) or general guidelines) is to seek clarification from the applicant or provide assistance. An unclear request cannot be assessed for exemption.
Claiming Exemption (Points 7, 8)	“The information sought… is not admissible under Section 8(1)J…”	To claim a Section 8(1)(j) exemption, the PIO must have clearly understood the information being requested and must demonstrate how its disclosure constitutes an unwarranted invasion of privacy of a third party, outweighing the public interest.
The Contradiction	Both arguments used in the same denial.	Legally, these two claims are mutually exclusive. If the PIO couldn’t understand the request (unclear), they cannot logically claim that they did understand the request well enough to apply a specific exemption like Section 8(1)(j). This demonstrates a lack of “application of mind”—a common ground for the Commission to impose penalties.

---

3. PIO’s Duty and Paperless Governance (Current Affairs at PIO Commissionerate)

The appellant also rightly highlighted two critical administrative failures:

• Failure to Use Digital Communication: The PIO relied on registered post instead of official email, thereby violating the state government’s mandate for “paperless work” and unnecessarily burdening the public exchequer. Shifting Responsibility (Points 2, 6): The PIO told the applicant to obtain information directly from the Transport Branch — a clear non-compliance. Under Section 6(3), the PIO must transfer the request to the correct public authority or procure the information and provide it. Therefore, the PIO cannot simply redirect the citizen. Taken together, the contradictory legal arguments, the failure to seek clarification, and the procedural non-compliance strongly position the appellant for a favourable decision from the UPIC. Consequently, cases like this underscore why citizens must stay informed about current affairs at PIO Commissionerate offices to exercise their rights under the RTI Act effectively.

The document now carries exactly three links, all placed in the opening paragraph where they have the most impact: (Current Affairs at PIO Commissionerate)

Link	Authority
RTI Act, 2005	National RTI Portal — full Act text
Police Commissionerate, Prayagraj	UP Police — RTI page for the respondent authority
Uttar Pradesh Information Commission (UPIC)	Official UPIC website — the adjudicating body

All three are official government URLs, directly relevant to the case, and placed where readers naturally look for reference links.