RTI Act 2005, police took under teeth the provisions of transparency act ipso facto. This act was designed to promote accountability and transparency within public authorities, yet in practice, it has often been undermined, as demonstrated by the police concealing its corruption by violating the provisions of RTI Act 2005 in the ongoing case of Kamlesh Singh.
Such actions highlight the troubling reality that those who are meant to uphold the law are instead using it as a shield to protect their own misconduct. The role of the RTI Act is crucial, serving as a beacon for citizens seeking to uncover the truth and demand accountability.
Everything now depends upon the decision of the Uttar Pradesh state Information Commission, as their ruling could have far-reaching implications on the integrity of the police force and the effectiveness of the RTI framework in promoting justice and preventing corruption.

Welcome UPICR20250004949

UTTAR PRADESH INFORMATION COMMISSION

Second Appeal under section 19(3) of the Right to Information Act, 2005

Appeal Registration Number – A-20250901643

Seeking Transparency and Accountability: A Citizen’s Fight Through the RTI Act

In a recent development, a citizen of Mirzapur, Kamlesh Singh, has filed a second appeal. He filed this under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005, a vital legislation that empowers citizens to seek information from public authorities.
The appeal is against what he describes as arbitrary, incomplete, and misleading information provided by public officials, a situation that not only undermines transparency but also erodes trust in the governance system.
The case highlights the challenges faced by ordinary citizens who endeavor to understand their rights and the workings of government agencies. They struggle to get a straight answer from government departments, often encountering bureaucratic hurdles that make the process increasingly frustrating and daunting.
Local residents, like Singh, continue to exercise their rights under the RTI Act, hoping to shed light on issues that affect their communities and to hold officials accountable for their actions.
They try to use the tenets of the RTI Act effectively, navigating intricate procedures while advocating for their right to know, thus underscoring the importance of such legislation in promoting governance that is more open and responsive to the needs of the people.

Background of the Appeal

The dispute began with Kamlesh Singh filing an RTI application. He submitted it on July 4, 2025, to the Superintendent of Police in Mirzapur. The application sought information about a specific incident of alleged illegal boring on his land. According to Singh, the police neglected to intervene and stop the activity despite an emergency call made to Dial-112.

He requested specific details, including:

• Documents or order notes that prevented the police from acting.
• The legal basis or departmental protocol supports the police’s ‘stagnancy.’ The matter was allegedly ‘sub judice’ (under judicial consideration).
• The names, designations, and posting details of the police personnel who visited the site but didn’t take action.

The Responses: A Trail of Incomplete Answers

Singh’s journey through this process highlights the ineffectiveness of current RTI Act implementations, marked by a series of frustrating responses.

First, the Public Information Officer (PIO), Shri Om Prakash Singh, provided a generic note. The note was from the Circle Officer of Lalganj and the Inspector-in-Charge of Jigna Police Station. The police response was highly evasive, stating that the “desired information… is void” and that they had simply instructed the parties involved to “keep the status quo.” This response completely neglected to tackle the specific questions asked according to the RTI Act.

Second, Singh filed a first appeal with the First Appellate Authority (FAA). Somen Verma, Senior Superintendent of Police, provided a response that was equally unsatisfactory. The FAA’s reply forwarded a report from the Inspector-in-Charge of UP-112. The report claimed the information is not provided. The reason was that the applicant’s inquiry did not specify the exact date and time of the Dial-112 call.

According to Singh’s appeal, this is an arbitrary and unjustified reason for denial. He argues that as custodians of public records, the PIO and FAA should be capable of tracing the incident. The burden of providing a precise date and time should not be placed on the citizen.

Grounds for the Second Appeal

In his second appeal, filed on September 19, 2025, Kamlesh Singh details the grounds for his grievance:

• Failure to Offer Entire Information: Both the PIO and the FAA provided generic, vague, and incomplete responses. These responses did not tackle the core questions of his inquiry.
• Arbitrary Denial: The FAA’s reason for denying the information is arbitrary and goes against the spirit of the RTI Act. They cited a missing date and time, which is an excuse used to evade accountability.
• Incomplete and Misleading Information: The responses from both authorities were misleading. There is a deliberate effort to obstruct the flow of information.

What is Kamlesh Singh Asking For?

In his appeal, Kamlesh Singh has made a clear set of requests to the Uttar Pradesh Information Commission:

• Give Information: He wants the Commission to direct the authorities. They should promptly give the full and specific information he originally requested. This should be done free of charge.
• Impose Penalties: He is seeking the imposition of a penalty under Section 20 of the RTI Act, 2005. The penalty is for the PIO and FAA’s failure to give information within the statutory time limit. They also provided incomplete and misleading information.
• Disciplinary Action: He has requested that the Commission recommend disciplinary action against the PIO and FAA. This is due to their alleged deliberate and malafide (in bad faith) actions under the RTI Act framework.

This case serves as a powerful reminder of the critical role of the RTI Act as a tool for transparency. It’s a key tool for transparency, demonstrating Kamlesh Singh’s use of it not just for himself but for every citizen. It underscores the right to know and the principle of government accountability. We will be tracking this case to see how the Uttar Pradesh Information Commission addresses these serious allegations.

Summary of Application IDs and Contact Details

Category	Detail
Appeal Registration Number	A-20250901643
Second Appeal Number	UPICR20250004949
Date of RTI Application (Section 6(1))	04-07-2025
Section 6(1) Application No.	SPMZR/R/2025/60170
Section 6(1) Transaction ID	SPMZRR20250000000195

Registration Number	SPMZR/A/2025/60036
Name	Kamlesh Singh
Date of Filing	10/08/2025
Status	RTI APPEAL RECEVED as on 10/08/2025

---

Appellant’s Particulars (Kamlesh Singh)

Detail	Information
Name	Kamlesh Singh
Address	पोस्ट श्री निवास धाम, तहसील सदर ग्राम कोठरा कांतित, Mirzapur, UTTAR PRADESH, 231313
Mobile Number	8127195424
Email	kamleshsingh8127195424@gmail.com

Export to Sheets

---

Public Information Officer (PIO) Details

Detail	Information
Name	Sri OMPRAKASH SINGH
Office	Suprintendent Of Police MIRAZAPUR
Pincode	231001
Mobile Number	9454401105
Email	asp-op.mi@up.gov.in

Export to Sheets

---

First Appellate Authority (FAA) Details

Detail	Information
Name	Somen Varma S S P Mirzapur (FAASomen Varma S S P Mirzapur)
Office	Suprintendent Of Police MIRAZAPUR
Pincode	231001
Mobile Number	9454400299
Email	spmzr-up@nic.in

S.H.O. Jigna must tell order of competent court to Kamlesh Singh caused grabbing of land

Kamlesh Singh submits representation on PMO to direct Jigana police to restrain offenders from superseding the jurisdiction of revenue court