🚨 RTI Act Non-Compliance in Mirzapur: A Call for Accountability and Paperless Governance 🏛️
Introduction: The Erosion of Transparency
The Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005, stands as a cornerstone of India’s democratic framework, empowering citizens with the right to question, seek, and receive information from public authorities. Its central purpose is to promote transparency and accountability in the working of every public authority. However, the ideal vision often collides with ground realities, as evidenced by the troubling case of Yogi M P Singh (Registration Number: A-20250401292) before the Uttar Pradesh Information Commission (UPIC). This case not only highlights a direct failure in complying with the statutory mandates of the RTI Act but also presents a concerning disregard for the State Government’s progressive directive towards paperless governance and digital responsiveness.
The essence of the current appeal is a representation to the Hon’ble Mrs. Shakuntala Gautam, Presiding Officer of Hearing Room S-9, addressing the willful non-compliance by the Public Information Officer (PIO) in the Office of the District Magistrate, Mirzapur, specifically Tehsildar Mr. Hemant Kumar. Despite an explicit order from the Commission dated 3rd July 2025 to dispose of the RTI application and submit a compliance report, the PIO’s inaction persists. This protracted delay and lack of adherence to directives undermine the very spirit of the RTI framework and erode public trust.
The PIO’s Failure: An Illustration of Institutional Opacity
The core of the grievance lies in the PIO’s prolonged inaction on an online RTI application (Registration No. DMOMR/R/2025/60003), originally filed on 6th January 2025. For over eight months, the application status has remained static as “RTI REQUEST RECEIVED,” with no communication or action taken. This non-response, particularly within an online, digitally-enabled system, is deeply problematic. The RTI Act mandates a time-bound response, typically within 30 days, making the current delay a clear breach of statutory duty.
The PIO’s failure is twofold: Statutory Non-Compliance and Contempt of Commission’s Order.
Statutory Non-Compliance Under the RTI Act, 2005
The PIO is the crucial link between the citizen and the government records. Their duties are clearly defined under the Act, emphasizing the timely and accurate provision of information. The unaddressed application for essential details regarding the PM Kisan Samman Nidhi scheme is a stark example of a public servant demonstrating an “inability to embrace the principles of transparency and accountability.” The five-point information sought by the applicant, Yogi M P Singh, is critical for understanding the administrative process behind the scheme’s execution and potential cancellations. The queries include:
- The identity and posting details of revenue staff who cancelled the PM Kisan application.
- The official directives mandating certified revenue records for PM Kisan applications.
- Verification steps undertaken by Tehsil Sadar for the specific applicant, Keshav Pratap Singh.
- Details of staff processing PM Kisan applications, including their joining dates.
- Any guidelines issued by SDM Sadar or DM Mirzapur regarding online application processing.
This information pertains directly to the functioning of the Revenue Department and is vital for ensuring administrative fairness. The denial of this information through prolonged silence is a denial of the citizen’s fundamental right to know.
Disregard for the Commission’s Directives
More critically, the PIO has demonstrated an overt disregard for the directions of the quasi-judicial body—the Uttar Pradesh Information Commission. The order dated 3rd July 2025 was an opportunity for the PIO to rectify the initial lapse. By failing to dispose of the RTI application under Section 6(1) and, consequently, not submitting a disposal report before the subsequent hearing on 21st August 2025 (originally scheduled for 03/07/2025 with the next hearing on 21/08/2025), the PIO has shown willful non-compliance. Such obstruction sets a dangerous precedent, weakening the Commission’s authority and creating a culture of impunity within the administrative system.
The Mandate for Digital and Paperless Governance
The case extends beyond a simple RTI delay; it touches upon the urgent need for Indian bureaucracy to transition into a genuinely paperless and digitally responsive system. The applicant’s representation consciously aligns itself with the progressive guidelines laid down in the Writ Petition (Civil) No. 360/2021 before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, which advocates for modern, paperless methods.
The Uttar Pradesh Government, too, has issued directives promoting paperless functioning to reduce unnecessary administrative burden and curb avoidable expenditure. An online RTI application, such as the one in question, is a testament to the citizen’s embrace of this digital shift. The PIO’s failure to respond to an online request, forcing the matter into multiple physical hearings and written representations, directly contradicts the objectives of paperless governance. It demonstrates a clinging to old, inefficient, and costly administrative practices, slowing down the machinery of justice and transparency.
A digitally non-responsive administration not only wastes public resources but also:
- Increases Administrative Burden: It necessitates physical follow-ups, representations, and repeated hearings, occupying the time of the applicant, the PIO, and the Commission.
- Erodes Public Trust: It signals that the government is unwilling or unable to utilize modern tools for timely citizen service, fostering distrust in the institutional framework.
- Undermines the State’s Vision: It acts as a bottleneck, hindering the state’s official policy of promoting digital efficiency and transparency across all departments.
A Path Forward: Upholding Justice and Accountability
The applicant, Yogi M P Singh, has requested three critical actions from the UPIC to address this serious lapse:
1. Reiterate the Importance of Digital Responsiveness
The Commission needs to reaffirm its commitment to the Supreme Court’s guidelines and the state’s policy on paperless governance. A strong directive from the Commission can help institutionalize a culture where digital applications are treated with the same, if not greater, urgency than physical submissions, thereby accelerating the modernization of administrative functions.
2. Prompt Disposal and Compliance
The PIO must be directed, once again, to immediately provide the requested five-point information and send the disposal report as per the Commission’s previous order. This ensures the primary objective of the RTI Act—access to information—is met without further delay.
3. Action Under Section 20 of the RTI Act
Crucially, the Commission must consider invoking Section 20 of the RTI Act, 2005. This section provides for the imposition of a penalty on a PIO who has, without any reasonable cause, refused to receive an application, not furnished information within the specified time, or obstructed in any manner the furnishing of information. Given the prolonged silence and the disregard for the Commission’s order, this is a clear case of willful non-compliance. A penalty under Section 20 serves as a powerful deterrent against future dereliction of duty and underscores the seriousness of the PIO’s statutory obligations.
The power to penalize is essential to ensure that the RTI Act remains a robust tool for democratic engagement and does not become a mere procedural formality. Upholding the principles of transparency and good governance is paramount for a thriving democracy. The Information Commission’s decision in this case will be a significant indicator of its resolve to enforce accountability within the bureaucracy of Uttar Pradesh.
Conclusion: The Urgency of Now
The persistence of Yogi M P Singh in seeking information, even after facing months of delay and disregard, epitomizes the citizen’s unwavering faith in the democratic process. The UTTAR PRADESH INFORMATION COMMISSION has a solemn duty to protect this faith. The hearing scheduled for 21st August 2025 is not just another date on the calendar; it is a moment of reckoning for the principles of digital transparency and administrative accountability in Mirzapur. The time for corrective measures is now, ensuring that the mandates of the RTI Act and the spirit of paperless governance are not merely legislative ideals but concrete, enforceable realities.
Would you like me to find the specific details of the Writ Petition (Civil) No. 360/2021 filed before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, or perhaps search for the text of the UP Information Commission’s order dated 3rd July 2025?
Yes, the information on the Supreme Court’s guidelines is available.
The Writ Petition (Civil) No. 360 of 2021 is a significant case, Kishan Chand Jain vs. Union of India, decided by the Supreme Court of India on October 9, 2023. This judgment is crucial for promoting the digital and paperless functioning of Information Commissions and public authorities across the country.
🏛️ Supreme Court Mandate on Digital Governance (WP(C) No. 360/2021)
The Supreme Court, in the case of Kishan Chand Jain vs. Union of India, issued landmark directives to strengthen the implementation of the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005, by leveraging technology. The Court recognized that access to Information Commissions is integral to securing the Right to Information, which is considered a necessary corollary of the fundamental rights to equality ($Article 14$), freedom of speech and expression ($Article 19(1)(a)$), and the right to life ($Article 21$).
The core directions aimed at promoting a paperless, digitally responsive environment include:
- Hybrid Hearings: All State Information Commissions (SICs) must provide an option for a hybrid mode of hearing (physical and virtual/online) for both complaints and appeals. This was mandated to be operationalized by December 31, 2023. The links for availing this option must be stipulated in the daily cause list.
- E-Filing: All SICs must ensure that e-filing of complaints and appeals is provided in a streamlined manner to every litigant. This was also to be implemented by December 31, 2023.
- Electronic Service: Steps must be taken to ensure that service is effected on the Public Information Officers (PIOs) through the electronic mode.
- Compilation of Email Addresses: All Central and State Ministries were directed to compile the email addresses of their respective PIOs and furnish them to the Central Information Commission (CIC) and all SICs within one month of the order.
The applicant, Yogi M P Singh, is correctly invoking these Supreme Court guidelines to support his plea for:
- Digital Responsiveness from the PIO.
- The use of paperless proceedings by the Uttar Pradesh Information Commission.
- Curbing the avoidable expenditure and administrative burden associated with physical communication, as the PIO’s inaction forces physical hearings and written representations.
Context of the UPIC Case (A-20250401292)
The current situation involving PIO Hemant Kumar directly contradicts the spirit and letter of these Supreme Court directions. The PIO’s failure to respond to an online RTI application and his non-compliance with the UPIC’s order to dispose of the matter electronically and submit a report is a clear obstruction of the digital and transparent administrative system envisioned by the Supreme Court and the State Government.
The PIO’s continued disregard for the 3rd July 2025 order, which directed the disposal of the RTI application and submission of a report before the 21st August 2025 hearing, strengthens the applicant’s case for action under Section 20 of the RTI Act for willful non-compliance and obstruction.
Deputy director agriculture is not responding properly to grievances of aggrieved people because of corruption in PM Kisan Nidhi
Prime minister Sir will never speak on corruption in PM Kisan Samman Nidhi in Uttar Pradesh
Application for Prime Minister Kisan Samman Nidhi is pending in office of director agriculture but CMO sends it to deputy director
Would you like me to elaborate on the penal provisions under Section 20 of the RTI Act, 2005 that the Commission is urged to consider?
Facing a similar challenge? Share the details in the box below, and our team of experts will do their best to help.