The UPHRC issued an order for the Senior Superintendent of Police Mirzapur in the matter of Naresh Kumar Jaiswal, thereby highlighting the ongoing concerns regarding the case.

Proceeding IN UPHRC:

I have carefully perused the allegations made in the complaint of the complainant, Naresh Kumar Jaiswal.
Moreover, the allegations made in the complaint have a serious nature. Therefore, it is appropriate to call for a report from the Superintendent of Police, Mirzapur.

Order of UPHRC
Thus, the Superintendent of Police shall look into the matter. He will conduct the necessary inquiry. He will also associate the complainant. Finally, he will send his report to the Commission on or before 29.10.2025.
Afterwards, list/put-up this matter on 30.10.2025.

Justice Delayed? The UPHRC vs. Mirzapur Police in the Matter of Naresh Kumar Jaiswal

The pursuit of justice in India often feels like navigating a labyrinth, where the walls are built of bureaucracy and the corridors are paved with procedural delays. A striking example of this struggle is currently unfolding in the Mirzapur district of Uttar Pradesh. The case of Naresh Kumar Jaiswal, documented under UPHRC Case/File No. 19235/24/55/2025, has become a focal point for discussions regarding police accountability, human rights, and the efficacy of statutory oversight bodies.

At its core, this is not just a legal dispute; it is a test of whether the orders of the Uttar Pradesh Human Rights Commission (UPHRC) hold weight when confronted by the internal machinery of the police force.

---

The Genesis of the Complaint: Abuse of Power

The timeline of this case traces back to an incident on June 18, 2025, at the SHO Chilh jurisdiction in Mirzapur. Naresh Kumar Jaiswal, a resident of Surekapuram Colony, filed a formal complaint alleging a serious abuse of power.^{1 While the granular details of the incident are part of the ongoing inquiry, the “serious nature” of the allegations was sufficient to move the UPHRC into action.}

In a system where the police are often the first point of contact for justice, allegations of misconduct by the force itself create a complex paradox: who polices the police? It was this fundamental question that led Mr. Jaiswal to approach the Human Rights Commission, seeking an external gaze upon the conduct of local authorities.

---

The UPHRC Mandate: A Call for Accountability

On August 27, 2025, the UPHRC took cognizance of Jaiswal’s complaint (Diary No. 5885/IN/2025). The Commission’s proceeding was unequivocal. Recognizing the gravity of the matter, the UPHRC issued a formal notice to the Superintendent of Police (SP), Mirzapur.

The order was structured with three specific directives:

1. Direct Oversight: The SP was ordered to personally look into the matter.
2. Inclusive Inquiry: The SP must conduct a “necessary inquiry” and, crucially, associate the complainant (Mr. Jaiswal) in the process to ensure transparency.²
3. Strict Deadline: A final report was mandated to be sent to the Commission on or before October 29, 2025, with a follow-up hearing scheduled for October 30, 2025.³

This order represents the Commission’s primary tool for enforcement—the power to demand a factual report and a statement of action taken.

---

The RTI Intervention: Proactive Pursuit of Truth

By early September 2025, sensing a potential lag in the implementation of the Commission’s orders, Naresh Kumar Jaiswal took a sophisticated step: he invoked the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005.

On September 8, 2025, Jaiswal filed a detailed RTI request (Registration No. SPMZR/R/2025/60241) addressed to the Public Information Officer at the SP Office, Mirzapur. This was not a mere request for status; it was a surgical attempt to pin down accountability. Jaiswal’s RTI sought:

• The names and designations of the staff who received the UPHRC order.
• Certified copies of the “notings” made on the communication, revealing how the order was internally processed.
• The specifics of the Action Taken Report (ATR).
• A request for the “Reason for Inaction,” citing the “Right to Reason” upheld by the Supreme Court of India.

---

The “Right to Reason” and Legal Accountability

The inclusion of the “Right to Reason” in Jaiswal’s RTI is a significant legal maneuver. The Indian judiciary has long maintained that administrative authorities must provide reasons for their decisions (or lack thereof). When a body as high-ranking as the State Human Rights Commission issues a directive, silence from the police department is not just a procedural lapse; it is a potential violation of administrative law.

By demanding to know which specific officers handled the file, Jaiswal is effectively preventing the “dilution of responsibility”—a common tactic where files are lost in transit or shifted between departments to avoid personal accountability.

---

The Role of the ASP (Operation) and Nodal Officers

The transparency data from the filing reveals that Om Prakash Singh, the ASP Operation, has been designated as the PIO and Nodal Officer for this matter.⁴ This places a significant burden of proof on the ASP’s office. Under the RTI Act, the PIO is personally liable for providing accurate information within 30 days.

This intersection of human rights law and the RTI Act creates a “pincer movement” for the complainant. While the UPHRC pressures the SP from the top down for an inquiry report, the RTI Act pressures the office from the bottom up for administrative transparency.

---

Why This Case Matters to the Public

The Naresh Kumar Jaiswal case is a microcosm of the challenges facing human rights litigation in India.

• Institutional Inertia: The gap between a Commission’s order (Aug 27) and the filing of an RTI (Sept 8) suggests a lack of immediate, visible action by the local police.
• The Victim’s Burden: It highlights how the onus of “following up” almost always falls on the victim. Despite having an order from a State Commission, Jaiswal had to manually trigger an RTI to ensure the order wasn’t buried.
• Systemic Transparency: If the Mirzapur police comply with the UPHRC order and the RTI request, it reinforces faith in the rule of law. If they fail, it exposes a systemic immunity that police departments often enjoy in the hinterlands.

---

Looking Ahead: The October Deadlines

The next few weeks are critical. The UPHRC has set October 29, 2025, as the hard deadline for the inquiry report.^{5 If the Superintendent of Police fails to submit a comprehensive report that includes the participation of Mr. Jaiswal, the Commission has the power to summon senior officials or recommend disciplinary action.}

For the citizens of Mirzapur and observers of human rights in Uttar Pradesh, the resolution of Case No. 19235/24/55/2025 will serve as a bellwether. It will determine whether the “Human Rights” label is a powerful shield for the common man or merely a decorative title for a toothless tiger.

Justice for Naresh Kumar Jaiswal is now a race against the calendar.

Pritesh Kumar submitted non compliance of order passed by U.P.H.R.C. Lucknow by S.P. Mirzapur before U.P.H.R.C. Lucknow in wife’s murder