Explore the issue of False Fir by Police, exposing systemic problems and the need for transparency in law enforcement actions. The persistent occurrence of these false firings not only raises significant ethical concerns but also highlights the urgent requirement for reform within the justice system. As communities demand accountability, it becomes increasingly essential to dissect the underlying factors contributing to these violations, such as inadequate training, biased protocols, and lack of oversight. A transparent approach is crucial for rebuilding trust between law enforcement agencies and the communities they serve, ensuring that necessary reforms are implemented to protect citizens’ rights while maintaining effective policing. A thorough investigation into these incidents can uncover patterns that may call for comprehensive policy changes, ultimately leading to a more just and equitable legal framework.

🚨 The Nexus of Police Misconduct and RTI: A Case Study from Prayagraj concerning False Fir by Police

The Right to Information (RTI) application concerning Saurabh Singh (alias Rajan Singh) highlights systemic police misconduct. Ultimately, this detailed record illustrates widespread administrative apathy and deep procedural opacity within law enforcement. Arbitrary police actions and the routine denial of information undermine public trust. Therefore, restoring transparency remains essential. At its core, the issue revolves around an accused individual’s fundamental right to full transparency. Timely access to official medical and arrest records serves as a crucial safeguard against police excesses.

---

I. Allegations of Police Arbitrariness and False Implication

The applicant describes an atmosphere of corruption across local police operations. Furthermore, this situation reveals an organizational culture where officers regularly operate with minimal oversight. Specifically, the grievance alleges that police routinely register false cases, also referred to as False FIRs, to intimidate innocent citizens. Additionally, authorities frequently ignore formal directives issued by oversight bodies like the Uttar Pradesh Human Rights Commission.1 As a result, such persistent misconduct actively subverts the justice system and strips vulnerable citizens of essential protections.

The specific case of Saurabh Singh from Mauaima, Prayagraj, illustrates these broad concerns. Moreover, the official RTI application and First Appeal bring to light several critical points regarding procedural irregularities:

Pointwise focus in the case False Fir by Police is as follows

• False Case and Serious IPC Sections: First, the appellant alleges that local police deliberately fabricated a case against Saurabh Singh and his father. Indeed, officers applied six severe IPC sections, including theft charges, as direct retaliation. In reality, both victims had visited the police station on March 1, 2023, seeking protection. Specifically, they intended to file an official FIR against an opposing party in a land dispute. Instead of assisting them, police wrongfully detained and falsely charged both men.
• Fabrication of Evidence: Secondly, the appellant contests official statements from the Mauaima Station House Officer (SHO). Notably, the SHO stated that officers found no stolen property on Saurabh Singh during his search. Nevertheless, the police station still formally filed severe theft charges against him. Therefore, this contradiction in official documentation demonstrates an attempt to fabricate incriminating evidence.
• Disregard for Due Process: Finally, investigating officials failed to provide mandatory arrest details. They omitted the exact date, time, physical location, and full list of arresting personnel. Consequently, this critical omission supports claims that police fabricated the entire case without following established legal protocols.

---

II. Denial of Information Under the RTI Act, 2005

The First Appeal (SSPPY/A/2023/60037) addresses two key pieces of improperly denied information. Fundamentally, the RTI Act of 2005 was enacted to empower citizens, promote openness, and curb corruption. However, public officials frequently misuse statutory exemption clauses to shield delinquent officers from scrutiny, including instances of false FIRs by police. As a result, the current appeal challenges the Public Information Officer’s (PIO) legally flawed interpretation of the Act:

A. Denial of Medical Examination Report

To begin with, the PIO explicitly denied access to the official medical examination report prepared by the Primary Health Centre. Specifically, the PIO claimed that statutory RTI provisions prohibit sharing personal medical documents with third parties.² However, the original RTI application included photographical evidence showing visible bodily injuries sustained in police custody. Thus, this official medical report serves as indispensable objective evidence required to substantiate claims of custodial assault and physical torture.³

• The Appellant’s Argument: The appeal relies on a foundational principle of the RTI Act. Specifically, information that cannot be denied to Parliament must not be denied to any individual citizen. Furthermore, state agencies are legally required to share medical records when requested by legislative committees. Therefore, withholding these exact same documents from a directly affected citizen violates explicit statutory mandates.
  • False Fir by Police: Cases of False Fir by Police can undermine the credibility of law enforcement and obstruct justice, leading to legal consequences for both the police and the complainants.
• Legal Position on Medical Records: High Court judgments and landmark Central Information Commission (CIC) rulings consistently affirm that patients have an absolute right to access their own medical records. Indeed, Articles 19 and 21 of the Indian Constitution guarantee this entitlement as part of fundamental rights. Section 8(1)(j) restricts third-party disclosures to protect privacy. However, this exemption does not apply when an individual requests their own evaluation. Moreover, overriding public interest demands full disclosure to evaluate suspected police conduct and excessive force. Consequently, the PIO’s outright denial is fundamentally unlawful. These records remain essential to establishing a legal defense against severe human rights violations.⁵

B. Denial of Arresting Police Staff Details

In addition to withholding medical records, both the PIO and the SHO intentionally withheld complete details regarding the police staff who arrested Saurabh Singh.

• Implication: Refusing to disclose officer identities serves primarily to shield police personnel from legal accountability. Conversely, disclosing officer names, station diary entries, and duty rosters would expose procedural fabrications if the physical arrest never occurred at “Purebhawa.” Furthermore, routine duty assignments represent standard public administrative information that law enforcement agencies must maintain transparently. Therefore, withholding these basic details highlights clear arbitrary action and deliberate institutional bias aimed at protecting offending personnel.
  • False Fir by Police: Instances where police officers fabricate evidence or false reports to justify arrests or actions, undermining the integrity of law enforcement and leading to potential injustices in the legal system.

---

III. Incomplete Action Taken and Appeal Dismissal in matter of False Fir by Police

The overall case timeline clearly illustrates a pattern of deliberate administrative non-compliance. Specifically, the following chronological sequence of events highlights the enormous procedural obstacles citizens face when seeking critical information from law enforcement:

1. Application Filed: To begin with, the initial complaint was submitted on March 1, 2023 (addressed directly to SHO Mauaima).⁷
2. RTI Filed: Subsequently, the formal RTI request was filed on March 4, 2023 (under Registration No. SSPPY/R/2023/60098).
3. RTI Disposed: However, the request was disposed of much later on January 2, 2025. In their response, the PIO simply stated, “Reply: The report is respectfully sent for perusal.” Consequently, the appellant rightfully deemed this vague response completely incomplete and evasive.
4. First Appeal Filed: Meanwhile, due to the initial delay, the First Appeal was formally lodged on May 6, 2023 (Registration No. SSPPY/A/2023/60037).
5. Appeal Disposed: Eventually, the appeal was disposed of on August 1, 2025. Remarkably, authorities dismissed the appeal as “not maintainable.” They did so despite previously providing partial information on January 2, 2025.⁸

Impact of Procedural Delays

Summary dismissals labeling appeals as “not maintainable” serve to block institutional accountability. Furthermore, extreme delays directly violate the strict statutory 30-day deadlines mandated under the RTI Act. Specifically, authorities took 22 months for an initial RTI response and 27 months for a First Appeal decision. Additionally, false FIRs by police exacerbate the issue, undermining public trust and further complicating the pursuit of justice. Ultimately, such systematic delay tactics prevent legal remedies and allow abuses of authority to proceed unpunished.

---

Next Step for the Applicant

The First Appellate Authority arbitrarily dismissed the appeal and failed to address fundamental legal questions. Therefore, further action is necessary. Applicant Yogi M P Singh must now file a formal Second Appeal before the State Information Commission (SIC) of Uttar Pradesh to obtain the withheld records.

• 1. Grounds for Second Appeal: In the first place, the applicant should challenge the First Appellate Authority’s decision on several key legal grounds:
  1. Illegal Denial of Information: Specifically, the applicant should contest the PIO’s assertion that the RTI Act restricts sharing the victim’s medical report. Instead, they should explicitly cite binding constitutional guarantees and established RTI precedents.
  2. Incomplete and Omitted Records: Additionally, the appeal should emphasize missing documentation, including the Circle Officer’s Action Taken Report, specific details of arresting officers, general station diary entries, and the official recovery memo.
  3. Unjustified Dismissal and Penalties: Furthermore, the appeal must challenge the decision declaring the First Appeal “not maintainable.” Ultimately, it should urge the Commission to penalize the PIO under Section 20 for willful obstruction of information.

2. Time Limit

In terms of timing, the applicant must officially submit the Second Appeal within 90 days of receiving the formal order from the First Appellate Authority (FAA).

• Specifically, the FAA status indicates “APPEAL DISPOSED OF as on 01/08/2025.” As a result, the statutory 90-day window officially begins as soon as the applicant receives the order.

Next Action Step: Consequently, the applicant should visit the official UPSIC portal (http://upsic.up.gov.in/) to formally register the Second Appeal. Ultimately, this legal filing will demand strict enforcement and full disclosure of all illegally withheld records.

Related Posts

• Report of CO Lalganj and Its Impact on Justice
• Appeal & Airtel’s False Reporting Revealed
• Misleading information to Mahima Maurya
• Exposing RTI Abuse: Case of False Compliance in UP
• Tehsildar Misconduct: Land Encroachment in Prayagraj