Transparency Under Siege: The Battle for Accountability at DGMH Uttar Pradesh

The Right to Information (RTI) Act of 2005 was envisioned as the strongest weapon in the hands of the Indian citizen to combat corruption and bureaucratic opacity. However, the case of Yogi M. P. Singh vs. The Directorate General of Medical and Health Services (DGMH), Lucknow, reveals a troubling reality: nearly two decades after the Act’s inception, high-ranking officials continue to treat legal mandates as mere suggestions.

Despite formal notices from the Uttar Pradesh Information Commission (UPIC), the Joint Director (JD) cum Additional Director (AD) Karmik has reportedly failed to supply critical information, leading to a legal stalemate that undermines the very foundation of democratic accountability.

---

The Chronology of Evasion

The journey for information began nearly a year ago, marked by a series of missed deadlines and administrative silences:

• November 4, 2024: The original RTI application was filed seeking clarity on departmental investigations and the tenure of specific officials.
• December 7, 2024: After 30 days of silence—a direct violation of Section 7(1) of the RTI Act—a First Appeal was filed.
• January 17, 2025: With no response from the First Appellate Authority (FAA), the matter reached the Second Appeal stage at the State Commission.
• August 14, 2025: A scheduled hearing took place where, notably, the Public Information Officer (PIO) remained absent, leading the Commission to reschedule the matter.

---

Core Issues: What is Being Hidden?

The information sought by Mr. Singh is not merely administrative; it touches upon the integrity of the medical health department in Uttar Pradesh. The key queries include:

1. Accountability for Misconduct: Details regarding the action taken on complaints against Dr. Pradeep Kumar and the subsequent non-cooperation of the CMO Prayagraj and CMS Bhadohi.
2. Bureaucratic Tenures: Precise data regarding the tenure of Dr. A.K. Shrivastava in various capacities (Joint Director and Additional Director).
3. Institutional Transparency: Copies of communications between the department and the Information Commission concerning the closure of previous appeals.

The refusal to provide these details suggests a deeper “systemic apathy” where the department appears to be shielding officials from scrutiny regarding medical negligence and departmental misconduct.

---

Legal Violations and the Call for Section 20

The RTI Act is not a “request” but a “statutory requirement.” By failing to respond, the PIO and the FAA have bypassed several legal pillars:

• Section 7(1): Mandates a response within 30 days.
• Section 19(1): Requires the First Appellate Authority to adjudicate on grievances within a maximum of 45 days.
• Section 20(1) & (2): Empowers the Commission to impose a penalty of ₹250 per day (up to ₹25,000) and recommend disciplinary action against erring officials.

The appellant, Mr. Singh, has now formally prayed to Hon’ble Mrs. Shakuntala Gautam (Court No. S-9) to invoke these penal provisions. Without financial and professional consequences, the PIO’s “willful denial” is likely to continue.

---

The Broader Implications for Governance

This case is a microcosm of a larger crisis in public administration. When the Directorate General of Medical and Health Services—a department responsible for the life and wellbeing of millions—operates behind a veil of secrecy, it invites corruption.

The persistent refusal to comply with the Information Commission’s notices is more than just a procedural delay; it is a challenge to the authority of the Commission itself. If a Joint Director can ignore a Commission notice with impunity, the RTI Act risks becoming a “toothless tiger.

---

Conclusion: A Test for the Commission

The upcoming hearing on September 29, 2025, stands as a critical juncture. Will the Uttar Pradesh Information Commission take a stand for the common citizen, or will bureaucratic delay tactics prevail once again?

The prayer is simple: Direct the PIO to furnish information and penalize the delay. Only through strict enforcement of Section 20 can the Commission restore public faith in the transparency of the Uttar Pradesh government.

The State Information Commission (SIC) acts as the highest guardian of the Right to Information Act at the state level. When departments like the DGMH fail to act, the Commission steps in not just as a mediator, but as a quasi-judicial body with the powers of a civil court.

Here is a detailed look at the role and powers of the Commission in ensuring you receive the information you are entitled to:

---

1. The Power of Compulsion (Section 18 & 19)

The Commission’s primary role is to adjudicate Second Appeals. When a PIO ignores an application or a First Appellate Authority (FAA) fails to pass an order, the Commission has the legal authority to:

• Order Disclosure: Direct the PIO to provide the information in a specific format within a strict timeline.
• Summon Officials: Issue summons to high-ranking officers (like the JD/AD Karmik) to appear in person to explain their non-compliance.
• Inspect Records: They can physically examine any record held by the public authority; no document can be hidden from the Commission under the guise of “confidentiality” unless it meets specific exemption criteria.

---

2. The Role of Accountability: Penal Provisions (Section 20)

This is the most critical function of the Commission. To prevent officials from treating the RTI Act lightly, the Commission acts as a disciplinary authority:

• Monetary Penalties: Under Section 20(1), if the Commission finds that information was delayed without reasonable cause, it can impose a penalty of ₹250 per day, up to a maximum of ₹25,000, on the PIO personally.
• Disciplinary Action: Under Section 20(2), the Commission can recommend disciplinary action against the PIO under the service rules applicable to them if they persistently fail to comply.

---

3. Bridging the “Information Gap”

The Commission ensures that the “power asymmetry” between a citizen and a powerful department is balanced.

Function	Description
Fact-Finding	The Commission investigates whether the information actually exists and if it is being willfully suppressed.
Interpreting Law	It decides if the PIO’s reasons for denial (such as “privacy” or “official secrets”) are legally valid or just excuses.
Granting Compensation	Under Section 19(8)(b), the Commission can actually order the department to pay monetary compensation to the appellant for any loss or detriment suffered due to the delay.

---

4. Ensuring “Suo Motu” Disclosure (Section 4)

Beyond individual cases, the Commission is responsible for ensuring that departments like the DGMH proactively publish information (Section 4 mandates). If a department’s website is outdated or lacks transparency, the Commission can issue a directive to the head of the department to reorganize their filing systems and update their public portals.

---

The Current Context: Your Case

In your specific matter (File No. S09/A/1350/2025), the Commission’s role now shifts from “hearing” to “enforcement.” Since the PIO has ignored previous notices:

1. The Commission should now issue a Show Cause Notice to the PIO asking why a penalty should not be imposed.
2. The Commission can order an inquiry if they suspect records are being tampered with or hidden.

The presence of Hon’ble Mrs. Shakuntala Gautam as the presiding officer is vital here; the Commission must now use its “coercive powers” to ensure the DGMH Lucknow stops its pattern of evasion.

Joint Director, DG Karmik must provide information regarding action taken by DGMH