SPARROW Transparency Issues: Data and Reporting Discrepancies
Key Issues with Transparency on SPARROW 🛠️ What Can Be Done? Shakuntala Gautam, State Information Commissioner, Uttar Pradesh (Hearing Room No.: S-9) Appeal No. : S-09/A/0728/2024 Shri Yogi M.P. Singh vs. J.S. Officer, Acting District Magistrate, District-Mirzapur. Order The appeal registered through Complaint and Appeal Tracking System (CATS) was presented. The call was made. Both…
Data Discrepancies: A standing committee found major mismatches in the number of officers who filed Immovable Property Returns (IPRs) versus the actual strength of the service. For example, in 2011, the reported figures didn’t align with DoPT’s official count, leaving thousands unaccounted for.
Inconsistent Reporting: The same department reported different numbers in different contexts. For instance, the 106th and 112th Standing Committee reports showed lower non-filing numbers than the SPARROW portal itself.
Lack of Verification Mechanism: There’s no robust system to verify the authenticity of property declarations, which raises concerns about collusion and corruption in public administration.
Opaque Disclosure Practices: While APARs are supposed to be disclosed by the primary custodian, the process lacks clarity and consistency, especially when officers default or skip reviews.
🛠️ What Can Be Done?
Data Purification: The Standing Committee has recommended extensive cleansing of the portal’s data to ensure accuracy and integrity.
Public Access to IPRs: Making IPR filings publicly accessible could enhance accountability.
Audit Trails: Implementing audit logs for APAR and IPR submissions would help trace delays and omissions.
Neither government nor accountable public staff are showing interest to ensure compliance of the government orders regarding the voluntary disclosure of assets on the Sparrow Portal of the government of Uttar Pradesh.
Shakuntala Gautam, State Information Commissioner, Uttar Pradesh (Hearing Room No.: S-9)
Appeal No. : S-09/A/0728/2024
Shri Yogi M.P. Singh vs. J.S. Officer, Acting District Magistrate, District-Mirzapur.
Order
The appeal registered through Complaint and Appeal Tracking System (CATS) was presented. The call was made. Both the parties were absent on the last hearing date. Notices were sent to both the parties for today’s hearing through email dated 26.06.2025. Both the parties could not join the online hearing due to network problem.
In relation to the matter, a written statement has been sent by the Public Information Officer, Office of the District Magistrate, District-Mirzapur along with the email dated 02.07.2025, which has been preserved on the file.
In view of natural justice, notice should be sent to both the parties giving them an opportunity to present their side in the case and a copy of the order of the Commission dated 26.05.2025 should be attached with the notice and sent to both the parties for compliance. The file should be presented for hearing on 06.08.2025.
Objection regarding communication No. 772 / Sahayak Jan Suvidha Li. / 2025 dated 22.01.2025 was made on 16 April 2025 at 17:07 before presiding officer through email. 1 message
Mahesh Pratap Singh <yogimpsingh@gmail.com>
4 July 2025 at 18:19
To: SHAKUNTALA GAUTAM <hearingcourts9.upic@up.gov.in>, dmmir <dmmir@nic.in>
Mahesh Pratap Singh <yogimpsingh@gmail.com> 16 April 2025 at 17:07 To: SHAKUNTALA GAUTAM <hearingcourts9.upic@up.gov.in>
This objection could not be sent to district magistrate Mirzapur because the applicant was not apprised with the executive email of the district magistrate.
Govt directed through its special secretary Dhananjay Shukula to district magistrate to be instrumental in voluntary disclosure of assets by subordinates. How did the government achieve its goal through district magistrate must be disclosed by providing information to the information seeker?
District Magistrate Mirzapur has not provided the option to submit the RTI applications on the RTI portal to seek information concerning the collectorate Mirzapur. This implies that district Magistrate Mirzapur itself is not interested in providing information to the information seekers.
Short submissions of the appellant are as follows. 1-Most respected sir the appellant has submitted the following kof in the following appeal and this document concerning the running case must be considered by the respected commission before reaching on any conclusion.
18 D-160120250129 A-20240401203 S09/A/0728/2024 Yogi M P Singh पता : Public Information Officer Office -कलेक्ट्रेट,जनपद-मिर्जापुर 16/01/2025 S-9 04/07/2025 For further hearing. KOF submitted by citizen and forwarded to the concerned hearing officer.
2- Most respected Sir, subsequent order passed by the most respected commission is as follows. Shakuntala Gautam, Honorable State Information Commissioner, Uttar Pradesh, Hearing Room: S-9
Appeal Number: S9/A/0728/2024
Shri Yogi M.P. Singh Vs. Public information officer in office of the District Magistrate, District-Mirzapur.
Order-Registered through Complaint and Appeal Tracking System (CATS). The file was presented. Call was made. Both the parties were present at the last hearing on 16.01.2025. For today’s hearing on 31.01.2025, the appellant was sent the date 27.01.2025 time (10:55:14) for hearing through video conferencing. The opponent was sent the date 15.01.2025 time (05:37). In continuation of the above, both the parties are absent for hearing through online video conferencing.
The letter of the opposite Public Information Officer, Collectorate, Mirzapur, No. 772 / Sahayak Jan Suvidha Li. / 2025 dated 22.01.2025 is preserved on the file through email, in which it is mentioned that the appellant has sought information regarding filling up the details of all movable and immovable assets of the officers of Mirzapur district on sparrow-pcs.up.gov.in by the Government Order No. 1/114964/2021 dated 16.11.2021 of Appointment Section-7. The government sends personal ID passwords to the officers on the Sparrow portal to fill up the details of their property, regarding which no information is available at the district office. The said information is related to the personal details of the officers, information of which is not payable as there is no record in the office. A copy of the said information and a copy of the order passed today should be sent to the appellant along with the notice with the intent that in case there is any objection to the information received, he should make his clear point-wise objection available to the office of the opposite Public Information Officer within a week and present his side by appearing in person before the Commission on the fixed date of hearing under Section 9 (1) of the Uttar Pradesh Right to Information Rules, 2015 along with a copy of the objection and proof of transmission. The opposition Public Information Officer, Office of the District Magistrate, District-Mirzapur is directed by attaching a copy of the order passed today with the notice that if the objection of the appellant is received, then according to the rules and provisions of the Right to Information Act 2005 and Uttar Pradesh Right to Information Rules, 2015, the objection of the appellant should be resolved and made available to the appellant before the due date and a copy of the disposal report should be presented before the Commission on the due hearing date. The file should be presented for hearing on 06.03.2025. 31-01-2025 3- Most respected Sir whatever communication is available in the paper book of the case of the public information officer was not made available to the appellant. Therefore there is no need to submit the objection before the public information officer in the office of district magistrate Mirzapur. 4- Most respected sir as far as the matter concerns the appearing before the most respected commission through video conferencing it is rarely possible for the applicant because the appellant is suffering from hyperglycemia and this ailment is due to the extreme tension to the applicant and during the hearing this tension is increased sharply. 5-Sought information by the appellant is as follows. 1-Provide the name and designation of the staff who disclosed the assets voluntarily up to 31 January 2024 under the supervision of District Magistrate, district- Prayagraj.
2- Provide the name and designation of the staff who did not disclose their assets voluntarily by 31st January 2024 under the supervision of District Magistrate, district- Prayagraj. 3- Provide the action taken by district magistrate, district Prayagraj regarding the government order dated 4th January 2024. 4- Provide the copy of the communications exchanged with the subordinates by the District Magistrate, District Prayagraj in compliance with the government order concerning disclosure of assets voluntarily by provincial civil servants of the government of Uttar Pradesh. 5-Provide the name and designation of the staff who are processing this government order in the office of district magistrate, district Prayagraj. 6- It is quite obvious that the appellant did not seek property details of any public staff from the public authority district Magistrate. 7- If no information is made available by the district Mirzapur then this implies that he has not taken any action on the order of government as follows. अतएव मुझे यह कहने का निदेश हुआ है कि कृपया अपने अधीनस्थ तैनात उत्तर प्रदेश सिविल सेवा (कार्यकारी शाखा) के समस्त अधिकारियों को 31 दिसम्बर, 2023 तक धारित समस्त चल-अचल सम्पत्ति का विवरण sparrow-pcs.up.gov.in पर अपने आई 0 डी0 पास-वर्ड का प्रयोग करते हुए अनिवार्य रूप से 31 जनवरी 2024 तक ऑन-लाइन भरने हेतु अपने स्तर से निर्देशित करने का कष्ट करें। This implies that the appellant is seeking information concerning the compliance of this government order. 8- The appellant is not seeking property details but seeking information concerning the compliance of the government order mentioned above which is not being compiled by the public servants quite obvious from the repeated directions of the government in this direction. Please direct PIO to understand the contents of the RTI application by taking the help of Google translator and provide the information. For this appellant shall ever pray to you, most respected sir. Date-04/07/2025, Yours sincerely Yogi M P Singh,Mobile number-7379105911
4 responses to “SPARROW Transparency Issues: Data and Reporting Discrepancies”
Preeti Singh
What is the cause of disparity in voluntarily disclosed assets by the provincial civil servants and their known sources of income as well as acquired property by them. That is why provincial civil servants were running away from declaring their assets voluntarily on sparrow portal and the government made efforts and several Government orders were passed and information is not being provided by the departmental heads like district magistrate commissioner directors principle secretaries concerning compliance of Government orders.
Loading…
Bhoomika Singh
The Government of Uttar Pradesh is requesting to the provincial civil servants in the state to submit their assets voluntarily on the sparrow portal prepared for this purpose. When this government order was issued then only one fourth of the provincial civil servants voluntarily declared their assets which was very much poor performance. Until now the government is requesting to submit the assets voluntarily on the sparrow portal and still there are many more provincial civil servants not declared their assets quite obvious from the fact they are not providing information to information seekers.
First of all, government of Uttar Pradesh must declare that how many staff have declared their assets volunteerly on the sparrow portal of the government and how many staff did not do so? It is obvious that more than dozen RTI applications submitted to various public authorities to know the position of the voluntary disclosure of assets by the provincial civil servants and factual position is that not a single public Information officer disclosed this information ipso facto.
Undoubtedly it was an excellent step to check the property of the provincial civil servants by inviting voluntary disclosure of asset on the sparrow portal at the Government of Uttar Pradesh. It is most troublesome that corrupt staff are still not declaring their assets on the sparrow portal volunteerly quite obvious from the Government orders issued time and again and not providing information concerning the compliance of it by the district magistrate commissioner director and secretaries.
Loading…
Facing a similar challenge? Share the details in the box below, and our team of experts will do their best to help.Cancel reply
Facing a similar challenge? Share the details in the box below, and our team of experts will do their best to help.