Obviously, district judge Mirzapur must meditate on the non entertainment of RTI application. The CPIO in the office of the district judge should uphold the dignity of the office. They must not violate the provisions of law.
This blog post examines the legal implications of the RTI appeal filed by Shivam Gupta against the District Court of Mirzapur, focusing on the concept of “deemed refusal” and the accountability of judicial administrative offices.
The Silence of Authority: When the District Court Mirzapur Ignores the RTI Act
In a functional democracy, the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005, serves as the ultimate bridge between the citizen and the state. It is designed to ensure that transparency is not a favor granted by the government, but a right exercised by the people. However, when the very institutions responsible for upholding the law—the judiciary’s administrative wings—fail to adhere to these statutory timelines, the foundation of public trust begins to crumble.
The recent case of Shivam Gupta vs. The CPIO, Office of the District Judge, Mirzapur (Appeal No. DNMZP/A/2025/60008) highlights a troubling trend: the “deemed refusal” of information concerning critical legal documentation.
The Core Dispute: The Mystery of Chargesheet No. 88/2025
The genesis of this appeal lies in a procedural discrepancy that could have significant legal consequences for the parties involved. The appellant, Shivam Gupta, sought a simple confirmation from the District Court: Has Chargesheet No. 88/2025 (dated 17/05/2025) been officially received by the court?
According to police records, the document was submitted on the day it was dated. Yet, when the appellant made informal inquiries, court staff reportedly denied its existence in their records. This “administrative limbo”—where the police claim a document was sent but the court does not acknowledge receipt—is exactly the type of opacity the RTI Act was built to resolve.
Understanding the “Deemed Refusal”
Under Section 7(1) of the RTI Act, a Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) is mandated to provide information or reject the request within 30 days. In this case, the application was filed on August 7, 2025. By September 6, 2025, the CPIO had failed to provide any response.
This silence triggers Section 7(2) of the Act, which creates a legal fiction known as “deemed refusal.”
If the Central Public Information Officer... fails to give a decision on the request for information within the period specified… [they] shall be deemed to have refused the request.”
By remaining silent, the CPIO of the Mirzapur District Court did not just delay the process; they legally “refused” the request without providing the mandatory justification required for such a refusal.
The Legal Grounds for the First Appeal
The appellant has now moved the First Appellate Authority (FAA)—the District Judge of Mirzapur—on several potent legal grounds:
- Violation of Statutory Timelines: The 30-day window is not a suggestion; it is a mandatory requirement. Ignoring this timeline undermines the legislative intent of the Act.
- Obstruction of Justice: In this context, the information sought isn’t mere data; it’s about the status of a criminal proceeding (a chargesheet). Obstruction here interferes with the appellant’s ability to engage with the judicial process effectively.
- Section 7(6) Entitlement: Because the CPIO failed to respond within the 30-day limit, the law now dictates that the information must be provided free of charge, regardless of how many pages or what the standard fees might be.
The Dignity of the Office of the District Judge
The appellant’s plea carries a significant moral weight. The District Judge is the highest judicial officer in the district. The administrative office attached to this position (the CPIO’s office) is expected to be a paragon of procedural integrity.
When a CPIO in a court environment ignores an RTI, it sends a message that the judiciary’s administrative side considers itself above the transparency laws that apply to the rest of the country. This “non-entertainment” of applications does not just hurt the individual appellant; it damages the dignity of the Office of the District Judge.
Seeking Accountability: Section 20(2)
Perhaps the most striking part of the appeal is the prayer for disciplinary proceedings. Under Section 20(2) of the RTI Act, if a CPIO persists in failing to provide information without reasonable cause, the Commission can recommend disciplinary action against them under the service rules applicable to them.
By asking the District Judge to recommend such proceedings, the appellant is forcing a moment of internal reflection within the Mirzapur District Court. Should a public official be allowed to sit on a request that involves the potential “disappearance” of a police chargesheet?
Conclusion: A Call for Transparency
The case of DNMZP/A/2025/60008 is a microcosm of a larger struggle for administrative accountability in India. Shivam Gupta’s appeal is not merely about a piece of paper; it is about ensuring that the records of the police and the records of the court match, and that the public has the right to verify that alignment.
As the First Appellate Authority, the District Judge of Mirzapur now has the opportunity to rectify this administrative lapse. Upholding the RTI Act is not just a bureaucratic duty—it is an essential act of maintaining the “dignity of the office” and ensuring that the law is respected by those who are paid to administer it.
To help you finalize your records and the blog post, here are the essential IDs and links related to your case.
Case Reference IDs
| Description | Identification Number |
| Online RTI Registration No. | DNMZP/R/2025/60017 |
| Online RTI Appeal No. | DNMZP/A/2025/60008 |
| UP Information Commission Case No. | S01/A/1731/2025 |
| UPIC Registration Number | A-20251100869 |
| Police Charge Sheet No. | 88/2025 (P.S. Kotwali Katra) |
Contact Details for District Court Mirzapur
If you need to contact the authorities directly regarding the pendency of your appeal, use the following details:
- Email ID: dcmir@allahabadhighcourt.in
- Appellate Authority: Sri Anmol Pal, District & Sessions Judge, Mirzapur.
- Office Phone: 05442-252346
- Fax: 05442-252347
- High Court RTI Help Desk: +91-532-2422335 (Ext: 2199)
Important Web Links
- Online RTI Status Track (Court Specific):rtionlinecourt.up.gov.in/request/status.php
- Use this to track the specific progress of your appeal DNMZP/A/2025/60008 by entering your registration number and email.
- UP Information Commission (UPIC) Portal:www.upsic.up.gov.in
- Essential for tracking your Second Appeal (A-20251100869) and checking the cause list for the upcoming hearing on December 23rd.
- District Court Mirzapur Official Page:allahabadhighcourt.in/District/Mirzapur.htm
- For verified lists of judicial officers and administrative notifications.
This summary is designed to be the “Opening Statement” for your blog post or to be used as a final takeaway for your readers. It encapsulates the legal battle against administrative silence at the District Court, Mirzapur.
Executive Summary: The Battle for the “Missing” Chargesheet
Case Overview:
The appellant, Shivam Gupta, is challenging the “Deemed Refusal” of information by the CPIO of the District Court, Mirzapur. The core of the dispute involves Chargesheet No. 88/2025, which the police claim was submitted on May 17, 2025, but which the court administration has failed to formally acknowledge or provide information about via RTI.
1. Key Facts & Timeline
- Initial Inquiry: Police records confirm the dispatch of the chargesheet to the court on 17/05/2025.
- RTI Filed: 07/08/2025 (Reg No. DNMZP/R/2025/60017) seeking status of receipt.
- Deemed Refusal: 07/09/2025 (CPIO failed to respond within the mandatory 30-day window).
- First Appeal: Filed on 12/09/2025 (Reg No. DNMZP/A/2025/60008) against the CPIO’s inaction.
2. The Legal Controversy
The case highlights a critical gap in judicial administration. The CPIO attempted to categorize the information as “judicial” (protected by court rules), whereas the appellant argues the Receipt/Dak Register is a purely administrative record. If a document is not yet registered by the court, it cannot be considered part of a “judicial proceeding,” making RTI the only tool to locate it.
3. Core Arguments for the Appeal
- Statutory Violation: The CPIO violated Section 7(1) by ignoring the 30-day deadline.
- Right to Free Information: Under Section 7(6), because of the delay, the information must now be provided to the applicant free of cost.
- Administrative Accountability: The CPIO has an obligatory duty under Section 5(4) to seek assistance from the Filing Section (Munsarim) to trace public records.
4. Next Steps in the Legal Fight
The matter has now escalated to the Uttar Pradesh Information Commission (UPIC).
- Commission Case No: S01/A/1731/2025
- UPIC Registration: A-20251100869
- Upcoming Hearing: December 23, 2025
Quick Reference Table
| Detail | Information |
| Appellate Authority | District Judge, Mirzapur |
| CPIO Contact | dcmir@allahabadhighcourt.in |
| Primary Issue | Missing/Unregistered Chargesheet No. 88/2025 |
| Requested Relief | Supply of info free of cost & disciplinary action against CPIO |
Would you like me to draft the specific “Representation Letter” you need to email to the Information Commission (hearingcourts1.upic@up.gov.in) for your hearing this Tuesday?
JUDICIAL OFFICERS IN DISTRICT COURT having no regard for R.T.I. Act 2005
Facing a similar challenge? Share the details in the box below, and our team of experts will do their best to help.