Tarun Pratap Singh designation Tehsildar Lalganj, evidently made the mockery of RTI Act 2005. Obviously, Subdivisional magistrate Lalganj Supported him neck to neck.

Anatomy of an RTI Appeal: A Citizen’s Stand Against Evasion and Alleged Corruption in Mirzapur

D-110920250052 A-20250200996 S09/A/0456/2025

Sadhana Tiwari

पता : Public Information Officer Office – जिलाधिकारी ,जनपद- मिर्जापुर ,पिन कोड : 231001

11/09/2025

S-9 16/09/2025

For further hearing.

KOF submitted by citizen and forwarded to the concern hearing officer.

In the dense landscape of Indian bureaucracy, evidently, the Right to Information (RTI) Act of 2005 stands as a powerful tool. Generally, It is accessible to the ordinary citizen. It is a key obviously to unlock transparency and hold public authorities accountable. As a result, Sadhana Tiwari recently filed a second appeal with the Uttar Pradesh Information Commission. Obviously, This action offers a compelling case study of this tool in action. It also highlights the obstacles citizens often face.

Ms. Tiwari’s case, registered under file number S09/A/0456/2025, is not just about a set of unanswered questions. It’s about a citizen’s persistent fight. She alleges there is a wall of misleading information. The alleged wall includes evasion and procedural impropriety. These are designed to protect officials from scrutiny.

The Backstory: A Grievance of Corruption

The story begins with a grievance Ms. Tiwari filed about an inheritance matter. She alleged that revenue officials in Lalganj Tehsil acted in collusion. These officials included the Lekhpal, Revenue Inspector, and Tehsildar. They unlawfully excluded her from her inheritance when she was a minor. Believing this to be a case of corruption and forgery, she sought the registration of a First Information Report (FIR).

Yet, her grievance was closed based on a report from the very tehsil she had accused. She was dissatisfied with this outcome. Hence, She filed an RTI application on February 19, 2025. She wanted to understand the process and rationale behind the dismissal of her complaint. The response from the Public Information Officer (PIO), Tehsildar Tarun Pratap Singh, proved to be the catalyst for her appeal.

The Five Pillars of the Appeal

Ms. Tiwari’s second appeal, scheduled for hearing on September 16, 2025, systematically dismantles the PIO’s response, point by point.

Point 1: The Question of Jurisdiction

• What Ms. Tiwari Asked: Who authorized the Lalganj Tehsil (a revenue body) to send a report? It concerned a matter that also involved the Drummond Ganj police station.
• The PIO’s Response: The PIO dodged the question. They simply attached a police report. This report was submitted months after her grievance was already closed. The closure was based on the Tehsildar’s report.
• The Core Issue: Ms. Significantly, Tiwari argues this is a deliberate evasion. Her question obviously was about the authorizing official in the revenue department, not the content of a delayed police report. This goes to the heart of procedural accountability.

Point 2: The Right to Reason

• What Ms. Tiwari Asked: What was the reasoning for classifying her corruption complaint as a simple “inheritance” matter?
• The PIO’s Response: Evidently, The PIO wrongfully denied the information, claiming it would need “creating information.
• The Core Issue: This denial is legally unsound. Ms. Tiwari’s appeal is correct. It cites Section 4(1)(d) of the RTI Act. This section obligates public authorities to give reasons for their administrative decisions. Classifying a complaint is an administrative act, and the “right to reason” is a fundamental principle of natural justice.

In respect of point 3: The Irrelevant Answer

• What Ms. Tiwari Asked: Under which specific laws are revenue officials empowered to handle a demand for a criminal FIR?
• The PIO’s Response: The PIO provided information about inheritance procedures under the U.P. Revenue Code.
• The Core Issue: Evidently, This is a classic case of providing irrelevant information to muddy the waters. Obviously, The query was about criminal procedure, not civil revenue law. This response fails to tackle whether the officials had any jurisdiction over an FIR application in the first place.

Point 4 & 5: The Principle of Self-Investigation

• What Ms. Tiwari Asked: Who forwarded her complaint against Lalganj officials back to those same officials for investigation? And under what law is such a self-investigation permissible?
• The PIO’s Response: Obviously, The PIO denied both pieces of information. Evidently, The PIO claimed they were “not accessible under the RTI Act” without citing any valid exemption.
• The Core Issue: The legal principle of “Nemo judex in causa sua” is a cornerstone of natural justice. It is also a significant point in this appeal. The appellant argues that in this case, the RTI process became a mechanism for avoiding accountability. It was not used to promote accountability.
• First, the main issue concerns the procedural impropriety. Obviously, The problem lies in having the very officials accused of misconduct investigate the complaint against them. This is a clear violation of the principle you mentioned. It states that no one should be a judge in their own cause. The denial of information on this point does not merely withhold a document. It also attempts to conceal a fundamentally flawed process.
• Furthermore, by denying the identity of the forwarding official, the PIO is obstructing the path to accountability. The appellant is not simply curious about a name. She is seeking to identify who initiated this procedural lapse. This person bears responsibility for a process that was, from the start, unjust. This lack of transparency weakens the Right to Information Act’s core purpose. The Act is designed to promote openness and ensure public authorities are held accountable.

What’s at Stake?

Ms. Tiwari’s prayer to the Information Commission is clear. She wants full and precise information. She also requests a penalty imposed on the PIO for providing misleading responses. Additionally, she desires a recommendation for disciplinary action.

This case transcends one individual’s fight. It highlights the systemic challenges that persist in governance. These include the tendency to deflect. There is also a reluctance to give reasons for decisions. Additionally, there is a flawed practice of allowing departments to investigate complaints against themselves.

The Uttar Pradesh Information Commission is preparing to hear this appeal. This serves as a reminder of the vital role the RTI Act plays. It empowers citizens to question authority and demand transparency. The outcome will not only decide Ms. Tiwari’s access to information but will also send a message about the importance of accountability within the public administration system.

UPHRC directed S.P. Mirzapur to act in accordance with law in matter of Sadhana