🚨RTI Appeals in Police Matters: The Battle for Compliance and Transparency

When Bureaucracy Sidesteps the Law: A Case Study in Prayagraj

The Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005, is a cornerstone of Indian democracy. It is designed to foster transparency and accountability in public administration, especially when considering RTI Appeals in Police Matters. However, the system is frequently tested. Public authorities often resist providing the specific information requested. They opt to deliver irrelevant or “misleading” reports instead. The case of Mr. Yogi M P Singh in Prayagraj illustrates this challenge precisely.

---

The Core Grievance: Evasion by the Assistant Commissioner of Police (ACP)

Mr Yogi M P Singh filed an RTI application. The registration number is SSPPY/R/2025/60508. He is seeking very specific details from the Police Commissioner’s Office in Prayagraj. The request concerns an order issued by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate (SDM) of Phoolpur. The information sought was direct and actionable:

1. Action Taken: The specific action taken by the Station House Officer (SHO), Mauaima, to comply with the SDM’s order.
2. Referral Details: The name of the Sub Inspector to whom the matter was referred by the SHO for compliance.
3. Reason for Non-Action (if applicable): This is the reason for non-action. It is required by Section 4(1)(d) of the RTI Act (Right to Reason in administration).

The ACP’s Response: A Diverting Report

Instead of addressing these three points, the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Phoolpur, Prayagraj, provided a report. The report focused on the history of the land in question, specifically Plot No. 220, which has an area of 0.6110 hectares. It also detailed the applicant’s ancestry. The report specifically mentioned Tej Bahadur Singh. He is the son of Vijay Bahadur Singh. His ancestors are Gajraj Singh, Nepal Singh, and Samsher Singh.

• The Issue: This report entirely misses the specific, procedural information requested. It omits Action Taken, Sub-Inspector’s Name, and Reason for Non-Action. Instead, it substitutes them with a historical/investigation report about the subject matter of the original dispute.
• The Appellant’s Claim: The report is misleading. It is an attempt to deviate attention from the core issue of compliance with the SDM’s order. This action thereby defeats the purpose of the RTI Act.

---

The Legal Recourse: Appeal Under Section 19(1)

When a Public Information Officer (PIO) provides incomplete, misleading, or false information, the applicant has a legal remedy. They can file a First Appeal under Section 19(1) of the RTI Act, 2005.

• The Action Taken: Mr. Singh has correctly exercised this right, filing the appeal (Registration No. SSPPY/A/2025/60139) on 30/07/2025.
• The Appellate Authority: The appeal is addressed to the Additional Commissioner of Police, Commissionerate Prayagraj. This person is the First Appellate Authority (FAA).
• Ground for Appeal: “Provided Incomplete, Misleading or False Information.”

---

Expected Action: Accountability for Non-Compliance

The appellant is now rightly expecting the senior police officer (the FAA) to ensure they provide the correct information. They also expect appropriate action against the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Phoolpur in accordance with the law.

The RTI Act provides for penalties against PIOs. These penalties apply when PIOs deny a request without any reasonable cause. Penalties also apply if they knowingly provide incorrect, incomplete, or misleading information. The FAA’s decision in this case will be crucial in setting a precedent for:

1. Enforcing the Right to Information: Ensuring the specific and relevant information is provided.
2. Upholding Accountability: The next step is to determine if the ACP’s actions warrant disciplinary measures. This assessment focuses on non-compliance with the spirit and letter of the RTI Act.

This case highlights the ongoing tension between a citizen’s right to know. It also emphasizes administrative bodies’ responsibility to be transparent. This underscores the essential role of the Appellate Authority in resolving such conflicts.

That is an excellent question that goes to the heart of enforcing accountability in the RTI mechanism. The appellant is at the First Appeal stage. Therefore, we focus on the powers and duties of the First Appellate Authority (FAA). The FAA is the Additional Commissioner of Police, Prayagraj, in this case.

🏛️ Powers and Duties of the First Appellate Authority (FAA)

The FAA is an officer of a senior rank to the Public Information Officer (PIO) (the ACP). The FAA acts as a quasi-judicial authority in deciding the appeal under Section 19(1) of the RTI Act. (RTI Appeals in Police Matters)

1. Mandate to Re-examine the Request (RTI Appeals in Police Matters)

The FAA must conduct a fresh, objective review of the RTI application and the response provided by the ACP.

• Order Correct Information: The FAA has the primary power. It is their duty to issue a speaking order directing the PIO (ACP). The PIO must provide the correct, complete, and specific information sought by the appellant within a stipulated time frame. In this case, this means directing the ACP to specifically address the three points. These points are Action Taken, Sub-Inspector’s Name, and Reason for Non-Action. The ACP should not provide the land history report.
• Self-Correction: The FAA can gather the correct information and provide it directly to the appellant. You can complete this along with the appeal order. However, directing the PIO is the more common route.
• Time Limit: The FAA must dispose of the appeal within 30 days of receiving it. If necessary, they can extend this period by up to 45 days. They must document the reasons for the extension in writing (Section 19(6)).

2. Imposing Accountability (Direct action has its limits)

The appellant expects action against the ACP. However, the RTI Act does not explicitly grant the FAA the power to impose penalties. (RTI Appeals in Police Matters)

• No Direct Penalty Power: The power to levy a monetary penalty rests with the State Information Commission (SIC). This penalty can be up to Rs. 25,000. The SIC acts as the Second Appellate Authority. It also has the authority to recommend disciplinary action under Section 20 of the Act.
  • Reasoning: The FAA is an internal authority within the Public Authority. The law assigns the power of penalty to the independent external body (the SIC/CIC). This is to maintain impartiality and a clear separation of powers.
• Taking Departmental Note: Despite not being able to impose a penalty, the FAA, as a senior officer, can:
  • Seek an Explanation/Show Cause: Demand a written explanation from the ACP. Ask why incomplete or misleading information was provided. Also, inquire why the statutory duty was breached.
  • Record Misconduct: Record in the appeal order the failure of the ACP to discharge the duties under the Act. This failure can be noted for departmental disciplinary purposes. It can also be leveraged by the appellant in a Second Appeal.

3. Burden of Proof (RTI Appeals in Police Matters)

Crucially, in the appeal proceedings, the PIO (ACP) must prove the denial or non-provision of correct information. It must be justified (Section 19(5)).

In this specific case, the ACP must prove that:

1. The information sought (Action Taken, etc.) does not exist or is exempted under Sections 8 or 9.
2. The provided report on land history was a reasonable and diligent response to the specific queries raised.

The original queries are highly specific and procedural. Therefore, the ACP’s defense for providing a descriptive report on land history will likely be challenging.

---

⏭️ What Happens Next? The Second Appeal (RTI Appeals in Police Matters)

If the Additional Commissioner of Police (FAA) does not pass an order within 45 days, the appellant can take action. If the Additional Commissioner upholds the ACP’s decision, the appellant can also respond. Finally, if the Additional Commissioner directs the ACP to provide information and it is still incomplete. The appellant may take further action. They may pursue additional recourse. The requester can then look for other options. They can then file a Second Appeal. The appellant has the right to do this. They can appeal to the State Information Commission (SIC).

It is at the Second Appeal stage that the SIC can:

• Impose Penalty (Section 20(1)): Impose a penalty of $Rs. 250$ per day, up to a maximum of $Rs. 25,000$, on the ACP for knowingly giving incorrect, incomplete, or misleading information without any reasonable cause. (RTI Appeals in Police Matters)
• Recommend Disciplinary Action (Section 20(2)): Recommend disciplinary action against the ACP under the applicable service rules.
• Award Compensation (Section 19(8)(b)): Direct the Public Authority to compensate the appellant for any loss or detriment suffered.

The SIC most strongly addresses the appellant’s request for action against the ACP, Phoolpur. However, the FAA’s decision forms the vital first layer of review and accountability.

This is highly informative. The search results, which appear to be related to the public advocacy and RTI filings of Mr. Yogi M P Singh, provide significant context and suggest the subject matter of the original SDM order.

The context strongly indicates that the original matter involves land encroachment and illegal construction. These activities occur on government land in the village of Sarai Jeet Rai. It is also known as Pure Bhaav. Police Station Mauaima, Phoolpur, Prayagraj.

🔍 Context of the Underlying SDM Order (RTI Appeals in Police Matters)

The Sub-Divisional Magistrate (SDM) of Phoolpur is likely to have issued an order. This order directed the Station House Officer (SHO) of Mauaima to comply with it. This conclusion is based on the search results. (RTI Appeals in Police Matters)

• Subject Matter: Illegal construction of permanent residential structures on government land. Araji Sankhaya 283 is mentioned in one related post. However, the RTI response mentions land number 220 in connection with Tej Bahadur Singh’s ancestry.
• Legal Provision: The matter involves a violation of Section 122 B of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950, which mandates the demolition of such encroachments and recovery of the land.
• The Key Dispute: The core issue involves the alleged failure of the police (SHO Mauaima) to take necessary action. These actions include removing the encroachment or registering a necessary case. Such direction was given by the revenue authority (SDM Phoolpur).

Why the ACP’s Reply Was Misleading (RTI Appeals in Police Matters)

The ACP’s reply focused on the ancestry of Tej Bahadur Singh. It also discussed the history of land number 220, which has an area of 0.6110 hectares. This response is now clearly seen as a diversion.

• Information Requested: Action taken by the police to comply with an executive/judicial order (of the SDM).
• Information Provided: A background investigation report on the history of ownership of a piece of land. It is related to the family involved in the dispute.
• The Outcome: The ACP provided a report (आख्या) on the land dispute. It did not include the requested information (सूचना) on the police’s administrative and legal compliance. This confirms the appellant’s primary grievance that the report “sidesteps the actual information requested.

🚨 Further Development in the Appeal Process

One search result indicates that the First Appellate Authority (FAA), the Additional Commissioner of Police, Prayagraj, may have already dismissed the appeal: (RTI Appeals in Police Matters)

“On 02/08/2025, the FAA (Additional Commissioner of Police, Prayagraj) dismissed the appeal… अपील पोषणीय न होने के कारण अधिकारियों ने प्रत्यावेदन को निरस्त करते हुये निस्तारित किया है।”

(The officials have rejected and disposed of the representation as the appeal is not maintainable.)

Implication of the FAA’s Order (If Confirmed)

If this is true, the FAA has failed to direct the ACP to provide the correct information. It has also failed to perform its statutory duty by dismissing the appeal as “not maintainable.” (RTI Appeals in Police Matters)

1. Arbitrary Dismissal: An appeal under Section 19(1) of the RTI Act is maintainable if the applicant receives no reply. It is also maintainable if they receive an incomplete or false reply. Additionally, a response received outside the time limit makes the appeal maintainable. Since the appellant received an allegedly misleading reply, the appeal is clearly maintainable.
2. Failure of Duty: Dismissing a legitimate appeal on the ground of “not maintainable” is neglecting duty.
3. This dismissal lacks a sound legal basis. Such dismissal lacks a sound legal basis. Make sure that all appeals evaluate with a sound legal basis. It indicates a failure to exercise power under Section 19(1).

The Next Logical Step (RTI Appeals in Police Matters)

The context is strong. The initial failure of the PIO (ACP) is apparent. There is also potential for arbitrary dismissal by the FAA (Additional Commissioner of Police). Therefore, the next mandatory step for the appellant, Mr Yogi M P Singh, is to file a Second Appeal. This appeal falls under Section 19(3) of the RTI Act, 2005. You must file it with the Uttar Pradesh State Information Commission (UPSIC).

The Second Appeal will be critical because it will allow the appellant to:

1. Obtain the Information: The SIC will direct the appropriate information to be provided.
2. Demand Accountability: The SIC has the authority to invoke Section 20. It can impose a penalty on the PIO (ACP Phoolpur) and/or the FAA (Additional Commissioner of Police, Prayagraj). This happens if they knowingly provide incorrect or misleading information or arbitrarily dismiss the appeal.