Table of contents
- Introduction Basic Education Department
- Key Takeaways
- Basic Education Department and Second Appeal: A Citizen Frustrated by Silence 📢
- 📖 How the RTI Act Is Supposed to Work
- 📅 Basic Education Department and Second Appeal: Timeline of Inaction
- 📜 The Information Being Withheld
- Information Points Requested from the Basic Education Department:
- 🏫 Why the Textbook Question Matters
- ⚖️ Legal Grounds for the Second Appeal against the Basic Education Department
- 🔍 What Happens Next in the Basic Education Department Second Appeal
- 💡 Lessons for Other RTI Applicants
- 👤 Key Contact Details
- Related Posts like Basic Education Department
Introduction Basic Education Department
A Mirzapur citizen filed a Second Appeal against the Basic Education Department after it ignored his RTI request, which aimed to obtain crucial information regarding the educational facilities provided in the area. This appeal was initiated due to the lack of response and transparency from the department, which is mandated to ensure accountability in its operations. The timeline highlights significant dates, including the initial RTI submission, the subsequent follow-ups, and the ultimate decision to escalate the matter. The legal grounds for the appeal are firmly rooted in the Right to Information Act, which empowers citizens to seek information from public authorities. The relief sought by the appellant includes not only the requested information but also measures to ensure that similar lapses do not occur in the future, fostering a culture of transparency and responsibility.
Key Takeaways
- First, Shivam Verma, a citizen of Mirzapur, has filed a Second Appeal against the Basic Education Department before the Uttar Pradesh Information Commission.
- The department never answered his RTI application. Therefore, the law treats its silence as a deemed refusal.
- Specifically, he wants records on corruption allegations, inquiry staff and action taken reports.
- In addition, he seeks the maximum penalty against the PIO for deliberate denial of information.
- Above all, the Basic Education Department and Second Appeal case shows how a citizen can enforce accountability when officials neglect their duties.
Basic Education Department and Second Appeal: A Citizen Frustrated by Silence 📢
A citizen from Mirzapur has filed a Second Appeal against the Basic Education Department with the Uttar Pradesh Information Commission (UPIC). In short, his goal is transparency and accountability. In particular, the Basic Education Department oversees primary education across the region, so its silence affects thousands of families.
According to the appellant, neither the Public Information Officer (PIO) nor the First Appellate Authority (FAA) supplied the information he requested under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005. Naturally, this silence raises doubts about the department’s commitment to the Act. After all, Parliament passed the law to create an informed citizenry and an open government. When officials ignore it, they weaken individual rights and erode public trust at the same time.
Mr. Shivam Verma filed the Second Appeal against the Basic Education Department. Notably, he describes the matter as a case of “deemed refusal” and a gross dereliction of statutory duty. Specifically, he wants records about corruption allegations and the enforcement of education policy in the state.
📖 How the RTI Act Is Supposed to Work
Before we examine the case, a brief reminder of the law is useful. To begin with, under Section 7(1) of the RTI Act, a PIO must supply information within 30 days of receiving an application. If the PIO stays silent, Section 7(2) treats that silence as a refusal. Consequently, the applicant gains an immediate right to appeal.
Next, the first appeal goes to a senior officer in the same department, known as the First Appellate Authority. Under Section 19(6), the FAA must decide the appeal within 30 days, or 45 days at most with recorded reasons. Only after this stage can a citizen approach the State Information Commission under Section 19(3).
In other words, the Act builds in two internal checks before an outside body steps in. However, both checks depend on officers doing their job. When both stay silent, as in this case, the entire system stalls.
📅 Basic Education Department and Second Appeal: Timeline of Inaction
Mr. Verma’s Second Appeal against the Basic Education Department sets out a clear timeline. Above all, it shows that the authorities repeatedly missed the deadlines that the RTI Act prescribes. Despite his follow-ups, the officials ignored their responsibilities. As a result, the delay defeats the very purpose of the Act.
Moreover, the problem goes beyond one applicant. Such non-compliance blocks the flow of public information and casts doubt on the enforcement machinery itself. Therefore, this Second Appeal against the Basic Education Department addresses both his own grievance and a wider systemic failure.
| Event | Date | Statutory Timeframe Violated |
|---|---|---|
| Original RTI Application Filed | 12-07-2025 | |
| Statutory 30-Day Limit Expires (Deemed Refusal) | 11-08-2025 | Section 7(1) Violated |
| First Appeal Filed (No Response Received) | 14-08-2025 | |
| 45-Day Limit for FAA Order Lapses (FAA Dereliction) | 28-09-2025 (Approx.) | Section 19(6) Violated |
| Second Appeal Filed | 28-09-2025 |
- 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
Essentially, the dispute concerns transparency inside the BASIC EDUCATION DEPARTMENT (Governance). The appellant argues that the records serve a clear public interest. After all, parents, teachers and students all deserve to know how the department handles complaints and enforces policy.
Furthermore, secrecy weakens educational reforms and reduces public confidence in the department’s handling of resources. For these reasons, the request is not a mere formality. Instead, it is a step toward a more honest and responsive BASIC EDUCATION DEPARTMENT.
Information Points Requested from the Basic Education Department:
- The Action Taken Report of the Principal Secretary (Basic Education) on grievance DOSEL/E/2025/0003990, which the Ministry of Education, Government of India, forwarded to the state.
- The name and designation of the staff currently processing the grievance within the department.
- Details of the inquiry staff examining allegations that Lions School (Bhujwa ki Chowki and Laldiggi, Mirzapur City) forced students to buy non-NCERT books.
- The Action Taken Report of the Basic Shiksha Adhikari (BSA), Mirzapur, against institutions selling books from private publishers.
- Copies of all office memos, government orders, circulars and guidelines that mandate NCERT books in schools.
🏫 Why the Textbook Question Matters
At first glance, the request may look like a paperwork exercise. In reality, it touches a problem that affects thousands of families every year. For example, many private schools push parents to buy expensive books from private publishers instead of the affordable NCERT titles. Often, the school ties this purchase to a particular shop.
Unfortunately, parents rarely complain because they fear consequences for their children. As a result, the practice continues year after year. Of course, government orders on NCERT books exist precisely to stop this. However, an order on paper means little without enforcement. Therefore, Mr. Verma’s request goes to the heart of the matter: did anyone act on the complaint, and who is responsible?
Notably, the grievance in question travelled from the Ministry of Education in New Delhi down to the state. Even so, the department evidently could not, or would not, say what it did with it. Indeed, that silence speaks louder than any official statement.
⚖️ Legal Grounds for the Second Appeal against the Basic Education Department
Legally, the Second Appeal against the Basic Education Department rests on four points. Together, they argue that continued silence amounts to a deliberate violation of the appellant’s fundamental right to information.
- Violation of Section 7(1) and Deemed Refusal under Section 7(2): The PIO, Mr. Pradeep Kumar Singh, supplied nothing within the mandatory 30 days. Consequently, the law treats his silence as a rejection of the request.
- Dereliction of Statutory Duty: The FAA, Joint Secretary Ved Prakash Rai, never decided the First Appeal within the prescribed period. In effect, he frustrated the entire appellate process.
- Public Interest: The records concern allegations of corruption, illegal pressure on students and parents, and the enforcement of state education policy.
- Mala Fide Denial: Finally, the appellant argues that the prolonged silence is deliberate. In his view, it is an unreasonable attempt to obstruct his right to information.
🙏 Relief Sought in the Second Appeal against the Basic Education Department
In his prayer to the Chief Information Commissioner and the Companion Commissioners, Mr. Verma asks the UPIC to:
- Direct Immediate Disclosure: Order the PIO to supply all requested information promptly, and free of charge under Section 7(6) because of the delay.
- Impose the Highest Penalty: Impose the maximum pecuniary penalty of ₹25,000 on the PIO, Mr. Pradeep Kumar Singh, under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act for deliberate denial.
- Recommend Disciplinary Action: Recommend strict disciplinary proceedings under Section 20(2) against both the PIO and the FAA (Mr. Ved Prakash Rai) for their persistent failure to follow the law.
🔍 What Happens Next in the Basic Education Department Second Appeal
Once the UPIC registers the Second Appeal against the Basic Education Department, it then lists the matter for hearing. At that stage, the PIO must explain why he did not respond in time. Under Section 20(1), the burden of proof lies on the PIO, not on the citizen. In addition, the Commission may impose a penalty of ₹250 per day of delay, up to ₹25,000.
In practice, however, hearings in Uttar Pradesh often take many months to arrive. Meanwhile, the information loses its value. For this reason, Mr. Verma has asked for the highest penalty. Without real consequences, officers have little reason to change their behaviour.
Meanwhile, Mr. Verma has opted for an online hearing. Now the matter rests with the Uttar Pradesh Information Commission. Will the Commission tolerate the arbitrary conduct of the PIO in the Basic Education Department, or will it enforce the law in this Second Appeal?
💡 Lessons for Other RTI Applicants
In summary, the Basic Education Department and Second Appeal case offers three practical lessons. First, keep a written record of every date. Mr. Verma’s timeline made his appeal easy to follow, and the Commission will appreciate that clarity. Second, do not wait for the FAA indefinitely. Once the 45-day limit passes, file the second appeal at once. Third, always ask for a penalty and for free information under Section 7(6). Otherwise, the officer pays no price for the delay.d appeal at once. Third, always ask for a penalty and for free information under Section 7(6). Otherwise, the officer pays no price for the delay.
👤 Key Contact Details
| Role | Name | Department/Office | Mobile Number |
|---|---|---|---|
| Appellant | Shivam Verma | Citizen, Mirzapur | 6386936345 |
| PIO (Respondent 1) | Sri Pradeep Kumar Singh | Basic Education Section Three, Lucknow | 9151990335 |
| FAA (Respondent 2) | Joint Secretary Ved Prakash Rai | Basic Education Section Three, Lucknow | 9454411244 |
Ultimately, this Second Appeal against the Basic Education Department is a powerful example. Here, a citizen is using the final recourse under the RTI Act to enforce transparency and accountability. Such appeals become necessary whenever government authorities fail to perform their mandatory duties.never government authorities fail to perform their mandatory duties.
Related reading:
- FAA of Central Information Commission illegally upheld denial of information
- Appellant submitted reason to condone delay in appeal against CPIO High Court
Download the Second Appeal: secappbedshivam.pdf
Facing a similar challenge? Share the details in the box below, and our team of experts will do their best to help.