The Uttar Pradesh Police Commissioner is a senior officer responsible for overseeing police operations in the state of Uttar Pradesh, India. This role involves managing law enforcement agencies, ensuring public safety, addressing crime, and implementing policies to maintain order within the region. The Commissioner often collaborates with government officials and the community to enhance security.

RTI Non-Compliance by Uttar Pradesh Police Commissioner’s Office: A Case Study from Prayagraj

Uttar Pradesh Police Commissioner’s Non-Compliance with the Right to Information Act, 2005 (Uttar Pradesh Police Commissioner)

---

The Core Issue: Misleading Response to a Specific RTI Request

The information seeker submitted an RTI application to the office of the Uttar Pradesh Police Commissioner, Prayagraj. The application sought five specific points of information. These points directly concerned the processing and compliance of an order issued by the Uttar Pradesh Human Rights Commission (UPHRC).

Sri Mahesh Pratap Singh had filed the complaint that prompted the UPHRC order. The complaint concerned an incident at Police Station Mauaima involving the victim, SAURABH SINGH. In response, the Commission formally called for a report from the Prayagraj Police Commissioner by a specific date.

Rather than addressing the five points directly, the Public Information Officer (PIO) sent a so-called “Report Police Station Mauaima Commissionerate Prayagraj.” This report merely described actions such as FIR registration, arrest under CrPC sections, and charge-sheeting in an unrelated FIR. These actions occurred before or parallel to the UPHRC proceedings. None of them responded directly to the UPHRC order.

As a result, the report completely omitted any information on the processing of the specific UPHRC order. This omission directly obstructed transparency and accountability.

---

The Unanswered Queries of the Information Seeker

The original RTI application demanded internal administrative details directly tied to the Human Rights Commission order. Nevertheless, the PIO deliberately ignored every one of these points.

1. Name and designation of the staff processing the UPHRC order.	Not Provided. (No mention of staff handling the UPHRC file.)
2. Notings made by the Commissioner of Police on the UPHRC order.	Not Provided. (No copy of file notings.)
3. Investigation report of the police officer nominated for compliance of the UPHRC order.	Not Provided. (Provided a general police report/charge sheet details instead.)
4. Copy of the Action Taken Report (ATR) by the Commissioner as a consequence of the enquiry report.	Not Provided. (No ATR concerning the UPHRC compliance was furnished.)
5. Date the UPHRC order was received in the Commissioner of Police’s office.	Not Provided.

The provided report essentially summarised the police action taken against the victim and parties involved. That action was the very subject of the original complaint to the UPHRC. Even so, the report offered no insight into the Commission’s official compliance process for its directive.

---

Violation of the Right to Information Act, 2005

The appellant’s complaint correctly highlights the failure of the PIO, Assistant Commissioner of Police (ACP) Phulpur, operating under the Uttar Pradesh Police Commissioner’s office, on two primary counts:

1. Failure to Provide Information Within Stipulated Time (Section 7(1) Violation)

The information seeker filed the RTI application on June 8, 2023. Under Section 7(1), the law requires the PIO to provide information within 30 days. Despite this clear mandate, the PIO missed the deadline by a notable margin.

2. Providing Incomplete/Misleading/Irrelevant Information

The PIO supplied irrelevant information in response to specific queries — a clear violation of the Act. The information seeker had unequivocally demanded details about the administrative processing of a formal commission order. That type of detail is explicitly classified as “information” under the Act. Instead, the PIO supplied a report about a land dispute and subsequent criminal proceedings. In doing so, the PIO blatantly ignored the requested internal compliance steps.

---

Conclusion: The Need for Accountability (Uttar Pradesh Police Commissioner)

This case exemplifies a frustrating pattern. Public authorities, including the office of the Uttar Pradesh Police Commissioner, attempt to circumvent transparency by providing tangential or irrelevant information. In contrast, the law is clear: the Public Information Officer must either provide the specific information sought or clearly state the reasons for refusal under Section 8 or 9 of the RTI Act.

The initial appeal correctly calls for two actions: (Uttar Pradesh Police Commissioner)

1. A direction to the PIO to provide the correct, point-wise information as requested.
2. Disciplinary action against the PIO for violating Section 7(1) of the RTI Act and for providing a misleading report.

Such instances make it imperative for appellate authorities to strictly enforce both the letter and spirit of the RTI Act. Ultimately, transparency must serve as an effective mechanism of accountability — not a mere formality.

That is a very relevant next step. Based on the documents you provided, I can provide the current official status of the First Appeal and a summary of the general guidelines regarding police compliance with Human Rights Commission orders, which contextualise the PIO’s responsibility.

Here is the structured analysis:

Status of the First Appeal (SSPPY/A/2023/60059) (Uttar Pradesh Police Commissioner)

The First Appellate Authority (FAA), operating within the office of the Additional Commissioner of Police, Commissionerate Prayagraj, has disposed of the appeal.

Appeal Registration No.	SSPPY/A/2023/60059
Date of Filing	05/08/2023
Status as of Reply	APPEAL DISPOSED OF as on 01/08/2025	The appeal process before the FAA has concluded.
Reply/Grounds for Disposal	“The information sought in the application under the Right to Information Act 2005 has been provided to the petitioner as per rules on 02.01.25. Since the appeal is not maintainable, the representation is dismissed and disposed of.”	The FAA claims the required information was provided by the PIO on January 2, 2025, and thus, the appeal is dismissed as “not maintainable” (meaning the ground for appeal—non-supply of information—is no longer valid according to the FAA).
Original PIO Reply Date	December 28, 2023 (as per India Post stamp)	This contradicts the FAA’s claim that information was provided on 02.01.25, though the final disposal of the RTI request (SSPPY/R/2023/60362) is also listed as 02/01/2025.

The key takeaway is that the FAA holds that the required information has been furnished and, therefore, the appeal is closed. If the information provided (the Police Station Mauaima Report) is still considered non-responsive to the five specific points of the RTI application, the information seeker’s recourse is to file a Second Appeal before the State Information Commission (SIC).

---

Guidelines for Police Compliance with Human Rights CommiThe Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993, governs the duties of the police and other state authorities. Specifically, it applies when they receive an order from the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) or a State Human Rights Commission (SHRC), such as the UPHRC.hts Act, 1993.

1. The Commission’s Authority and Directions (Uttar Pradesh Police Commissioner)

• Inquiry Power: The UPHRC, like the NHRC, has the power to inquire suo motu (on its own) or on a petition into allegations of human rights violations.
• Request for Report: Under Section 17 of the Act, the Commission typically calls for a report from the concerned authority at the inquiry stage — in this case, the Uttar Pradesh Police Commissioner, Prayagraj. The authority must furnish this report so that the Commission can proceed with its own inquiry.
• The Commission’s recommendations generally serve as advisory guidance. Nevertheless, when the Commission formally requests a report, the public authority must respond within the stipulated time.

2. Required Administrative Compliance (The Missing RTI Information)

The PIO’s response — the Police Station Mauaima Report — recounts the original incident and criminal proceedings. In doing so, it blatantly ignores the administrative compliance process that sits at the heart of the RTI queries. The police held a statutory obligation to answer the UPHRC notice. Instead, the PIO evaded this duty entirely.

The police authority’s compliance in this context requires the following steps, which are the subject of the RTI application:

1. File Creation & Processing: Immediately diarizing the UPHRC Notice and assigning it to a dedicated section/officer.	Query 5 (Date Received) & Query 1 (Staff Details)
2. Police Commissioner’s Directives: Reviewing the UPHRC order and issuing a formal internal order (Noting) to the investigating officer or unit to conduct the specific inquiry requested by the Commission.	Query 2 (Commissioner’s Notings)
3. Specific Investigation: Conducting an inquiry focused not on the original crime, but on the allegations of human rights violation (e.g., Abuse of Power, improper arrest, etc.) as noted by the UPHRC. This requires a specific Enquiry Report dedicated to the UPHRC order.	Query 3 (Investigation Report)(Uttar Pradesh Police Commissioner)
4. Action Taken & Reporting: Based on the Enquiry Report, the Police Commissioner’s office must prepare an Action Taken Report (ATR) detailing the findings and actions, and then formally submit this report to the UPHRC by the deadline (02.08.2023).	Query 4 (Action Taken Report)

The PIO outright failed to provide any of these administrative or process documents. Instead, the PIO substituted unrelated details from a separate criminal investigation. This substitution amounts to willful disregard of the RTI application.

---

Next Step: Filing a Second Appeal (Uttar Pradesh Police Commissioner)

Since the First Appellate Authority has disposed of the appeal, the information seeker must now file a Second Appeal before the State Information Commission (SIC). This is the only lawful step forward.

In the Second Appeal, the information seeker should argue: (Uttar Pradesh Police Commissioner)

1. Violation of the RTI Act: The PIO did not provide the information within 30 days, as required.
2. Misleading/Irrelevant Information: The PIO provided a report on the criminal matter (FIR No. 98/2023) and the Section 107/116/151 CrPC proceedings, which is not the information sought. The information sought pertains to the administrative steps taken to comply with the UPHRC Order (Diary No 1836/IN/2023).
3. Specific Request: Reiterate that the five points sought are internal, process-related documents (Notings, Staff Details, Specific Enquiry Report, ATR for UPHRC) that the public authority is obligated to provide under the RTI Act.

The U.P.H.R.C. called for a report from the Uttar Pradesh Police Commissioner, Prayagraj, regarding a false FIR filed by the S.H.O. against Saurabh Singh and his father. The enquiry was directed to the Uttar Pradesh Police Commissioner, Prayagraj, to ensure proper compliance with the notice issued by the U.P.H.R.C. in the case of Saurabh Singh.

Related reading: ACP Manoj Kumar Singh: Service Details Revealed

SHRC has registered a case no. 1658/24/4/2023 on the complaint regarding Saurabh Singh made against S.H.O. Mauaima, Prayagraj