Shivam Gupta’s Journey: A Second Appeal to Uttar Pradesh Information Commission

The Right to Information Act, 2005, is a cornerstone of democratic governance, ensuring transparency and accountability in public authorities. This blog post outlines the journey of a second appeal filed by Shivam Gupta. It discusses the core issues. These involve the denial of information by the police authorities in Mirzapur, Uttar Pradesh. It also addresses the misleading provision of information by these authorities.

Introduction

The Right to Information Act, 2005, is a landmark legislation. It empowers citizens to seek information from public authorities. This act fosters transparency and accountability in governance. Shivam Gupta’s journey shows the challenges. These are encountered in the practical realisation of these objectives, especially through the process of a second appeal.

Detailed Assessment of Core Issues

1. Arbitrary Denial of Information

The invocation of Section 8(1)(j) for denial of information is a recurring concern in RTI jurisprudence. While this provision protects personal information, its misapplication—particularly in matters involving the functioning of public authorities—contradicts the Act’s intent. The information sought by Mr. Gupta concerns administrative actions and investigative processes. These are matters of public interest and should ordinarily be disclosed. In the context of Shivam Gupta’s journey, such information holds particular significance and should only be withheld if there are compelling reasons.

2. Misleading and Unsatisfactory Replies

The essence of the RTI Act lies in providing clear, precise, and relevant information. Replies that evade core queries or offer generic responses fail statutory requirements. They also frustrate the purpose of the legislation. The authorities’ responses in this case appear to lack substantive engagement with the appellant’s concerns. In fact, at times responses have ignored the core elements seen in Shivam Gupta’s journey. This is unacceptable under Section 19(1) and Section 19(3) of the Act.

3. Lack of Accountability in Police Investigation

Transparency in police investigations maintains public confidence. When authorities fail to disclose details such as the actions taken, they raise questions. Procedural lapses and the identities of investigating officers also cast doubt on the integrity and accountability of the process. Oversight bodies must address such lapses to ensure adherence to due process. Reflecting on Shivam Gupta’s journey highlights the urgent need for transparency in investigations.

4. Misapplication of Legal Provisions

The appellant asserts that the authorities misapplied BNSS provisions. This is a claim that requires serious consideration. This is especially true in cases where the jurisdictional link is absent. Preventive actions must ground themselves in law and facts. We must scrutinise any deviation to prevent the misuse of statutory powers. In truth, Shivam Gupta’s journey teaches us the importance of correct legal application.

5. Erosion of Public Trust

The consequences of arbitrary information denial extend beyond individual cases. They impact the broader public trust in law enforcement and democratic institutions. It is imperative that authorities uphold the principles of transparency and accountability to maintain the legitimacy of governance. Furthermore, the erosion witnessed through Shivam Gupta’s journey underscores the wider impact on public trust.

Recommendations

• Strict Adherence to RTI Guidelines: Public authorities must ensure that information is denied only in exceptional circumstances. There must be clear justification as per the RTI Act. These recommendations arise from observing Shivam Gupta’s journey through the appeals process.
• Capacity Building: Training for PIOs and appellate authorities is essential. It enables them to respond appropriately to RTI applications. They must also respond lawfully.
• Oversight and Accountability: The Information Commission should exercise its powers to investigate cases of arbitrary denial. It should impose penalties where warranted.
• Public Awareness: Educate citizens about their rights under the RTI Act to enable effective participation in governance.

Conclusion

The case of Mr. Shivam Gupta underscores the need for robust mechanisms to enforce transparency and accountability in public administration. Oversight bodies must act decisively to address lapses and restore public faith in the RTI framework. Upholding the rule of law is a statutory obligation. Adhering to the principles of good governance is also a moral imperative. It is clear that Shivam Gupta’s journey offers valuable insight into both the challenges and solutions inherent in RTI.

---

Date: 3 August 2025
Reviewer:Yogi
Location: Mirzapur, Uttar Prades

Case Overview

Appeal Registration Number: A-20250800246
Applicant: Shivam Gupta
Address: लोहदी रोड, ककरहवा, मिर्ज़ापुर शहर, Mirzapur, Uttar Pradesh, Pincode 231001
Mobile Number: 8756521496
Email: shivamgupta9307215205@gmail
Department: Home Department (District), Mirzapur
Office: Superintendent Of Police, Mirzapur

Timeline of Applications
RTI Application under Section 6(1)
Application No.: SPMZR/R/2025/60092
Date of Filing: 10/04/2025
Status: REQUEST REJECTED (12/05/2025)
Section 8(1)(j) was the reason for rejection. This section pertains to the disclosure of personal information.
PIO: Sri OM PRAKASH SINGH
Mobile: 9454401105
Email: asp-op.mi@up.gov.in
First Appeal under Section 19(1)
Application No.: SPMZR/A/2025/60023
The appeal was filed on 18/05/2025. The status is APPEAL DISPOSED OF as of 27/05/2025.
FAA: Somen Verma, Superintendent of Police
Mobile: 9454400299
Email: spmzr-up@nic.in
Second Appeal under Section 19(3)
Applied Date: 03/08/2025

Core Issues Raised

1. Arbitrary Denial of Information
   The Public Information Officer denied the requested information. He cited Section 8(1)(j). He claimed it relates to personal information. However, the information sought pertains to the functioning of the police. The police is a public authority. Therefore, it falls within the purview of transparency and accountability.
2. Misleading Replies by Authorities
   Both the PIO and the First Appellate Authority provided responses that were incomplete, unsatisfactory, and misleading. The information was either not relevant to the questions asked or deliberately omitted crucial details.
3. Lack of Accountability in Police Investigations
   The appellant sought specific information regarding the investigation of a land dispute, including:

Action taken reports

Reasons for not recording victim testimonies.
Names and designations of investigating officers.
Sections of law under which the investigations were conducted.
Rights of individuals involved in the dispute.
The replies received were generic. They either failed to address the core concerns. This indicates a lack of accountability and transparency.

4. Misuse of Section 8(1)(j)
   Section 8(1)(j) is intended to protect personal privacy. Its misuse to shield public authority actions from scrutiny undermines the intent of the RTI Act and promotes opacity in governance.

Relief Sought
The appellant requests the Uttar Pradesh Information Commission to:

Direct the concerned authorities to provide the requested information.
Investigate the misleading and arbitrary replies provided.
Take stringent action against officials violating the RTI Act to restore public confidence.
Contact Details and Web Links
Uttar Pradesh Information Commission
Address:
Chief Information Commissioner/Companion Information Commissioners
7/7A, RTI Bhawan, Vibhuti Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh, PIN Code-226010

Web Link: UPIC Official Website

Official UPIC Links (Shivam Gupta’s Journey)

• Main Website: upsic.up.gov.in
• Direct Link for Second Appeals: UPIC Second Appeal Portal
• RTI Online (For filing 6(1) and First Appeals): rtionline.up.gov.in

---

Important Context for Your Post (Shivam Gupta’s Journey)

Since you are writing about a Second Appeal, it is helpful to note that in Uttar Pradesh:

• The Second Appeal is filed under Section 19(3) of the RTI Act 2005.
• It must be filed within 90 days of receiving the First Appellate Authority’s decision. This applies whether the decision was actually received or should have been received.
• The UPIC portal allows you to track the status of your case. You can use a Diary Number or Case Number here: Track Application Status.

Key Contact Info (RTI Bhavan, Lucknow) (Shivam Gupta’s Journey)

If Shivam or your readers need to reach the commission directly:

• Address: 7/7A, RTI Bhawan, Vibhuti Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow, UP.
• Phone: 0522-2724930
• Email: webmaster-upic@up.gov.in

Superintendent Of Police, Mirzapur
PIO: Sri OM PRAKASH SINGH

Mobile: 9454401105
Email: asp-op.mi@up.gov.in
FAA: Somen Verma

Mobile: 9454400299
Email: spmzr-up@nic.in
Web Link: Mirzapur Police Official Website

Document References
Scanned copy of Second Appeal: View Document
PIO Reply: View Document
RTI Application: View Document
First Appeal: [View Document