Key Takeaways

• A citizen from Mirzapur, Mr. Shivam Verma, filed a Second Appeal with the Uttar Pradesh Information Commission against the Basic Education Department for failing to give information under the RTI Act.
• The appeal highlights a case of deemed refusal, demonstrating persistent inaction by the Public Information Officer and First Appellate Authority.
• Mr. Verma seeks critical information related to corruption allegations and educational policies, including details of inquiry staff and action taken reports.
• He requests immediate disclosure of information and seeks penalties against the PIO for deliberate denial, arguing it obstructs the fundamental right to information.
• This case exemplifies a citizen’s effort to enforce transparency and accountability when government authorities neglect their duties.

Frustrated by Silence: A Citizen’s Second Appeal to the UP Information Commission as Basic Education Department fails 📢

A citizen from Mirzapur has filed a Second Appeal with the Uttar Pradesh Information Commission (UPIC) in pursuit of transparency and accountability.
The appeal is specifically directed against the Basic Education Department, which plays a crucial role in overseeing educational initiatives in the region.
This citizen reports, with visible frustration, that neither the Public Information Officer (PIO) nor the First Appellate Authority (FAA) provided the necessary information requested under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005.
The lack of response has raised concerns about the commitment of public officials to uphold the principles of the RTI Act, which is designed to promote an informed citizenry and foster an environment of openness within government operations.
Such failures not only undermine the rights of individuals seeking information but also diminish public trust in government institutions that are expected to operate transparently.

The appeal, filed by Mr. Shivam Verma, presents a case of “deemed refusal.” It also shows gross dereliction of statutory duty. This is particularly information about allegations of corruption and the enforcement of educational policies in the state.

📅 Timeline of Inaction: A Case of Deemed Refusal

Mr. Verma’s appeal outlines a clear timeline demonstrating the authorities’ persistent failure to adhere to the mandated timelines of the RTI Act, which is designed to promote transparency and accountability within public bodies.
Despite repeated requests for information, the officials have overlooked their responsibilities, resulting in significant delays that undermine the purpose of the Act.
This consistent non-compliance not only hampers the flow of crucial information to the public but also raises concerns about the effectiveness of the mechanisms in place meant to ensure citizens can exercise their right to access information.
Through this appeal, Mr. Verma seeks not only to address his own grievances but also to highlight a systemic issue that affects countless individuals relying on the framework of the RTI for just and timely disclosures.

Export to Sheets

• Second Appeal Registration Number: A-20250902248
• Original RTI Application No.: DPBED/R/2025/60991
• First Appeal Application No.: DPBED/A/2025/60406

📜 The Information Being Withheld

The core of the matter relates to transparency and accountability within the BASIC EDUCATION DEPARTMENT (Governance), with the appellant seeking crucial details pertaining to public interest: such information is essential not only for fostering trust in the governance of educational institutions but also for ensuring that stakeholders, including parents, teachers, and students, are fully informed about policies and decisions that directly affect their educational environment.
Additionally, the appellant argues that a lack of transparency could potentially hinder the effectiveness of educational reforms and diminish overall public confidence in the department’s ability to manage resources effectively.
Therefore, the quest for these details is not merely a bureaucratic formality but a vital step towards enhancing the integrity and responsiveness of the BASIC EDUCATION DEPARTMENT in fulfilling its mandate to provide quality education for all.

Information Points Requested Basic Education Department:

1. Action Taken Report by the Principal Secretary (Basic Education). It pertains to a forwarded grievance (Number: DOSEL/E/2025/0003990). The grievance is from the Ministry of Education, Government of India.
2. Name and designation of the staff presently processing the grievance within the department.
3. Details of the inquiry staff are available. The staff is investigating allegations. These allegations involve forcing students to buy non-NCERT books at Lions School (Bhujwa ki Chowki and Laldiggi, Mirzapur City).
4. Action taken report by the Basic Shiksha Adhikari (BSA), Mirzapur, against institutions selling books from private publishers.
5. Copies of all relevant office memos, government orders, circulars, and guidelines mandating the use of NCERT books in schools.

⚖️ Legal Grounds for the Second Appeal against PIO Basic Education Department.

The appeal is built upon several strong legal points, arguing that the continuous silence constitutes a deliberate violation of the appellant’s fundamental right to information:

• Violation of Section 7(1) & Deemed Refusal (Section 7(2)): The PIO, Mr. Pradeep Kumar Singh, failed to provide any information within the mandatory 30 days. This is legally considered a rejection of the request.
• Dereliction of Statutory Duty: The FAA, Joint Secretary Ved Prakash Rai, failed to dispose of the First Appeal. This should have been done within the prescribed period. This failure essentially frustrated the entire appellate process.
• Public Interest: The information is considered significant public interest. It relates to allegations of corruption and illegal pressure on students/parents. It also concerns the enforcement of state educational policies.
• Mala Fide Denial: The appellant argues that the prolonged silence is deliberate. It suggests an unreasonable attempt to obstruct the right to information.