Anyone who files an RTI application with the District Judge, Gorakhpur, or with any court, soon discovers a problem as in the case of Naresh Kumar Jaysawal. The “success rate” of RTI applications in the Indian judiciary is a complex issue. In fact, two different metrics measure it. The disposal rate counts how many requests get a response. Meanwhile, the disclosure rate measures how much information the authorities actually share.
The judiciary is technically a “Public Authority” under the RTI Act. Even so, data suggests it remains one of the harder institutions to get specific administrative or personal data from.
Key Takeaways
- The success rate of RTI applications in the judiciary varies, with high disposal rates but low disclosure of information.
- District Judge Gorakhpur faces challenges in providing transparency, often denying requests based on internal rules and privacy concerns.
- Applications often encounter structural barriers, including high fees and offline filing difficulties, deterring applicants.
- Naresh Kumar Jaiswal filed an RTI application seeking detailed responses regarding delays in his ongoing legal case.
- The District Judge Gorakhpur oversees judicial processes and aims to ensure compliance with the Right to Information Act.
1. High Disposal, Low Disclosure in matter under supervision of District Judge Gorakhpur
Recent statistics (2023–2025) show that the Supreme Court and High Courts have high disposal rates, often above 90%. District offices such as the District Judge, Gorakhpur, follow a similar pattern. This means they respond to almost all applications within the 30-day limit. However, a “disposed” application does not always mean applicants received the information.
- The “Others” Category: A 2021-22 analysis revealed that over 90% of rejections by the Delhi High Court and the Supreme Court fell into the “Others” category—meaning the courts rejected them without citing a specific exemption clause from Section 8 of the RTI Act.
- Supreme Court Trends: In 2021, the Supreme Court reportedly halved its use of the “Privacy” exemption (Section 8(1)(j)), but rejections under administrative rules remained high.
2. Common Grounds for Rejection (District Judge Gorakhpur & Naresh Kumar Jaysawal)
The judiciary frequently denies information based on its own internal rules, which often override the RTI Act.1 This pattern extends to district offices like the District Judge, Gorakhpur:
- Section 8(1)(j) – Privacy: Courts almost always deny requests for judges’ assets, employees’ service records, or medical expenses as “personal information.”
- Section 8(1)(e) – Fiduciary Relationship: Courts often protect correspondence between the Chief Justice and the Collegium under the claim of “trust and confidence.”2
- Judicial vs. Administrative: Courts often refuse to share information about ongoing cases through RTI. Instead, they direct applicants to the Certified Copy process under the High Court Rules, which is often more expensive and restrictive than an RTI.
3. Structural Barriers to Success
Recent reports from 2024–2025 highlight several “hidden” reasons why the success rate for citizens is lower than in other departments. These barriers affect applicants at every level of the judiciary, including offices such as the District Judge, Gorakhpur:
- Rule-Making Power (Section 28): High Courts use their power to set their own RTI fees.3 While the Central Govt fee is ₹10, some High Courts charge up to ₹500 per application, which deters applicants.
- Offline Hurdles: Until recently, very few High Courts allowed online RTI filing.4 As of late 2024, more courts have moved online, but users often describe the interfaces as “cumbersome” compared to the Central RTI portal.
Summary Table: Judicial RTI Statistics (Estimates)
| Metric | Judicial Performance | Impact on Applicant |
| Response Time | High (30-day compliance is high) | You get an answer quickly. |
| Information Grant | Low to Moderate | Authorities deny most “sensitive” data. |
| Rejection Reason | Often “Internal Court Rules” | Harder to challenge in an appeal. |
| Online Access | Improving (Supreme Court is 24/7) | Easier to file than 5 years ago. |
Conclusion for Your Case
In your specific pursuit regarding the Nagar Nigam Prayagraj, you are dealing with an Executive/Administrative body, not a Judicial one. Municipal corporations historically grant “Certified Copies” of service rules and communications more readily than courts of law do. This requires proving a “larger public interest.” You have done that by citing the criminal proceedings. This is a different path from an RTI filed directly with the District Judge, Gorakhpur.
The Role of District Judge Gorakhpur
The District Judge, Gorakhpur, heads the district judiciary. In particular, the role carries significant authority and responsibility for delivering justice fairly and efficiently at the district level. This includes overseeing court proceedings, ensuring legal compliance, and resolving the numerous cases that fall under the office’s jurisdiction.
Naresh Kumar Jaiswal, a concerned citizen, is eagerly awaiting a solution to complex issues affecting his life and well-being. His own father inflicted a travesty of justice on him and a family member. This act has shattered their familial bonds. It has also raised serious questions about how the judicial system handles such delicate personal matters.
This situation highlights the judiciary’s critical role in restoring order and providing redress for those wronged. It underscores the urgent need for a thorough investigation and appropriate action in his case.
Seeking an Update: Naresh Kumar Jaiswal’s RTI Application on a Family Court Case
On September 13, 2025, Naresh Kumar Jaiswal filed a Right to Information (RTI) application seeking transparency and accountability. He submitted it to the office of the District Judge, Gorakhpur. It raised his family’s ongoing concerns about a long-standing legal matter that had caused them significant distress and uncertainty.
Jaiswal crafted the application with careful attention to detail. It outlines specific questions about the case’s status and the procedural delays the family had encountered. It reflects his determination to secure justice and clarity for his family amid the complexities of the legal system.
The Subject of the RTI: An Email Representation
Jaiswal’s RTI application directly refers to an email he sent on June 8, 2025. He addressed this email to dcgor@allahabadhighcourt.in and detailed grievances related to an ongoing case, Criminal Misc. Cases/915/2021 PRIYANKA JAISWAL VS NARESH KUMAR JAISWAL, which is currently pending before the Addl. Principal Judge, Family Court II, under the District Judge’s purview in Gorakhpur. Notably, the Gorakhpur district judiciary functions under the administrative control of the Allahabad High Court.
In this communication, Jaiswal raised concerns about the proceedings. He highlighted procedural irregularities and delays that have significantly affected the case’s timeline. In addition, he called for transparency and accountability from the judicial system. According to Jaiswal, these issues impede justice in his case and reflect broader problems in how the court manages family law cases.
Jaiswal’s efforts to seek clarity through the RTI process underscore his commitment to ensuring that the law upholds his rights. He wants the same protection for others in similar situations.
The Information Requested
In his RTI application, Jaiswal specifically requested an Action Taken Report. Specifically, he wants a detailed breakdown of the steps the authorities took in response to his June 8th email. That email raised critical concerns about the ongoing issues that have affected the community.
He has also requested the following specific details: the timeline of actions taken, and the individuals or departments involved in addressing his concerns. He also wants any correspondence that might shed light on how the authorities are handling the situation. Ultimately, the request aims to clarify the current status and seek accountability and transparency in the processes the authorities follow.
- The names, designations, and office details of any officials who have received his representation.
- The current status of the matter concerning his representation, especially any involvement from the District Judge of Gorakhpur.
Jaiswal has also confirmed that he paid the required Rs. 50 RTI application fee online. This was part of the filing process to the District Judge’s office in Gorakhpur.
Official Details and Next Steps
The office of district judge Gorakhpur formally received the application on September 13, 2025. This marks an important step in addressing public inquiries and promoting transparency. Rajesh Pati Tripathi is the nodal officer assigned for managing this RTI request. Applicants can reach him via his email ID dcgor@allahabadhighcourt.in.
Beyond his duties surrounding RTI queries in the District Judge’s office at Gorakhpur, Tripathi holds a broader responsibility. He ensures the office processes citizens’ information requests efficiently and correctly. Mr. Tripathi upholds the principles of the Right to Information Act and facilitates communication between the public and the judiciary. His office also handles all requests promptly, while maintaining the integrity and confidentiality of the information involved.
Moreover, by promoting transparency and accountability, this office aims to strengthen the community’s trust in the judicial system. As a result, the goal is a more informed, engaged citizenry.
The provisions of the RTI Act apply here. The matter may not fall under the jurisdiction of the CPIO in the District Judge’s office. If it does not, Jaiswal has requested a transfer of his application to the appropriate Public Information Officer. Either the CPIO must provide the requested information, or it must transfer the application promptly, as the Act requires.
| Registration Number | DNGKP/R/2025/60049 | |
|---|---|---|
| Name | Naresh Kumar Jaiswal | |
| Date of Filing | 13/09/2025 | |
| Status | RTI REQUEST RECEIVED as on 13/09/2025 | |
| Nodal Officer Details Name | RAJESH PATI TRIPATHI | |
| Email-ID | dcgor@allahabadhighcourt.in | |
Additional district judge Budaun again denied CD of court functioning
Facing a similar challenge? Share the details in the box below, and our team of experts will do their best to help.