Public spirited citizen is struggling for compliance of court order by Lekhpal but has not succeeded up till now. Despite their persistent efforts and numerous attempts to engage with local authorities, the situation remains unresolved.
The citizen has sought legal advice and even reached out to community support groups, hoping to gain momentum in their quest for justice.
They are determined to uphold the rule of law and ensure that the court’s decision is honoured, demonstrating resilience in the face of bureaucratic challenges.
As days turn into weeks, their frustration grows, but their commitment to seeing this matter through remains unwavering.

From Court Order to Official Silence: A Citizen’s Fight for Answers Exposes Bureaucratic Apathy in Uttar Pradesh

A citizen from Mirzapur has struggled with bureaucracy; thus, this is a striking case of official inertia. This ongoing battle against red tape has not only consumed significant time and resources but has also highlighted the pervasive obstacles faced by ordinary citizens when dealing with government processes.
As a result, the struggle prompted him to seek intervention from the Uttar Pradesh Information Commission, a body that is supposed to uphold citizens’ rights to information. Yet, he faced silence from the state’s Home Department while trying to obtain basic information about an ignored court order, leaving him feeling frustrated and unheard.
Ultimately, this journey is documented through a series of unanswered applications, each symbolising a plea for transparency and accountability. It raises serious questions about transparency in government operations and sheds light on systemic failures.
It also questions accountability in the administration’s handling of a court-mandated directive, emphasising the urgent need for reform in how administrative bodies interact with the citizens they serve and the importance of adhering to judicial decisions that are meant to protect the rights of the populace. The persistent neglect of such directives serves as a stark reminder of the challenges that individuals face when navigating the complexities of bureaucratic systems.

---

The Original Problem: An Unenforced Court Order

Yogi M. P. Singh, a resident of Mirzapur, filed a simple grievance (No. 60000250091069), claiming that a local Lekhpal did not follow a court order issued by the Additional Sub-Divisional Magistrate’s court. Moreover, he expressed his view that the official response was arbitrary. Consequently, he raised the issue on the Chief Minister’s Jansunwai portal and found it inconsistent.

Seeking clarity, Obviously, Mr. Singh turned to the Right to Information (RTI) Act. This tool is designed to empower citizens. It also holds the government accountable. As a result, he queried about the court order compliance through five straightforward questions:

• Firstly, Who decided his revenue-related grievance was a police matter?
• Secondly, Why didn’t the relevant party send it to the correct authority, the SDM Sadar?
• Thirdly, What action did the authorities take to enforce the court’s order?
• Furthermore, Who approved the “inconsistent” report submitted by the Circle Officer?
• For a legible copy of the documents uploaded on the portal.

What followed was a classic example of bureaucratic stonewalling.

---

A Timeline of Inaction

Mr. Singh’s quest for answers has been a masterclass in official evasion, revealing the complexities and intricacies of navigating bureaucratic systems.
It has forced him to climb every step of the RTI ladder, from submitting initial requests to appealing decisions that seem designed to obfuscate rather than clarify.
Each encounter with the authorities has highlighted the persistent obstacles that ordinary citizens face when seeking transparency, further fuelling his determination to uncover the truth despite the countless delays and vague responses that have become all too familiar.

• Step 1: The RTI Application (June 3, 2025): I filed the RTI (DHOME/R/2025/80166) with the Home Department. The law mandates a response within 30 days.
  • Result: Total Silence. Unfortunately, the Public Information Officer (PIO) is Ajendra Kumar Singh. He did not offer any information by the deadline of July 4, 2025. Consequently, this failure resulted in a “deemed refusal” under the RTI Act, highlighting non-responsiveness to the court-ordered queries.
• Step 2: The First Appeal (July 21, 2025): As per procedure, Mr. Singh submitted a First Appeal (DHOME/A/2025/60168) to a senior officer, the First Appellate Authority (FAA), Ashutosh Chandra Pandey. Consequently, the FAA must legally dispose of the appeal within 45 days.
  • Result: More Silence. Unfortunately, the 45-day deadline passed without any order or communication from the FAA.
• Step 3: The Second Appeal (September 25, 2025): Left with no other option, Mr. Singh has now filed a Second Appeal with the UP Information Commission (Appeal No. A-20250902068). This is the last resort for a citizen. It is necessary when the system fails at the department level. This is especially true regarding compliance with court orders.

---

Why This Case Matters

This isn’t just one man’s struggle; rather, it serves as a critical test of the state’s unwavering commitment to the rule of law.
When officials can allegedly ignore court orders without repercussions, it not only highlights a serious issue but also raises profound questions about accountability and governance.
The ability to flout judicial directives undermines public trust and breeds an environment where impunity thrives.
Furthermore, ignoring legally mandated requests for information regarding their inaction suggests a deeper, systemic breakdown within our institutions.
This situation calls for urgent scrutiny, as it poses a direct threat to the very foundation of our democratic framework, emphasising the necessity for reform and greater oversight.
The implications of such behaviour extend beyond individual cases, resonating throughout society and demanding a collective response to reclaim the integrity of our legal systems.

The RTI Act aims to combat this very culture of opacity obviously. The law clearly states that officials must give information within 30 days. Furthermore, authorities will impose penalties on those who fail to comply without reasonable cause.

In his appeal to the Commission, Mr. Singh has sought two key reliefs:

1. Give the information right away.
2. Impose the highest penalty on the PIO for the flagrant violation of the RTI Act, especially concerning court orders.

The state’s highest transparency watchdog will, thus, show accountability for public servants through its handling of this appeal. As a result, citizens like Yogi M. P. Singh, for the health of democracy in Uttar Pradesh, will closely watch the outcome.

Tehsil Sadar did not adopt logistic approach to resolve grievance of Jagdish Prasad, so he made grievance against arbitrary report.

Jagdish Prasad is seeking reason of submitting unsigned report and not mentioning date of submission of report in court of magistrate