🚨 The Battle for Transparency: Analyzing the Yogi M P Singh vs. PIO, Mirzapur RTI Appeal (S09/A/1087/2025) 🇮🇳

The Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005, stands as a cornerstone of Indian democracy, empowering citizens to hold public authorities accountable.¹ However, the path to obtaining information is often fraught with bureaucratic resistance. The ongoing RTI Appeal case of Yogi M P Singh vs. Public Information Officer (PIO), Office of the Deputy Director of Agriculture, Mirzapur, is a stark illustration of this struggle. This case, concerning information related to the vital PM Kisan Samman Nidhi scheme, highlights a concerning pattern of alleged defiance and non-compliance by a Public Information Officer towards the directives of the Uttar Pradesh Information Commission (UPIC).

This blog post delves into the specifics of this significant transparency battle, analyzing the case timeline, the core issues raised by the appellant, and the PIO’s response, which has been labeled as “evasive and contemptuous” by the appellant. The information presented here is compiled for public awareness and to track the pursuit of accountability in this RTI appeal.

---

1. The Appellant and the Subject Matter 🧑‍🌾

The appellant, Shri Yogi M P Singh, a resident of Surekapuram Colony, Mirzapur, Uttar Pradesh, initiated the process by filing an initial RTI application (DMOMR/R/2025/60003) on January 6, 2025. The subject matter of the request is of significant public interest: the PM Kisan Samman Nidhi scheme. This central government scheme provides income support to farmer families, and transparency in its implementation is crucial to ensure benefits reach the intended recipients without malpractice or bureaucratic hurdles.²

• Appellant: Yogi M P Singh
• Respondent: PIO, Office of the Deputy Director of Agriculture, Mirzapur
• Case Type: PM Kisan Samman Nidhi related information under RTI.
• Commission: UP Information Commission, Hearing Room S-9
• File Number: S09/A/1087/2025

The very need for an RTI application, and subsequently an appeal, underscores a potential lack of suo motu (voluntary) disclosure by the department concerning the operation and administrative details of the PM Kisan scheme in Mirzapur.

---

2. A Timeline of Non-Compliance: The Case Chronology 📅

The official case timeline reveals a procedural journey marked by delay and alleged administrative evasion:

Date	Event Description	Significance
January 6, 2025	Initial RTI application (DMOMR/R/2025/60003) filed.	The formal start of the information request.
April 23, 2025	First appeal (A-20250401292) filed with the UP Information Commission (UPIC).	Filed due to the PIO’s failure to provide any response within the stipulated time frame (30 days) of the RTI Act.
July 3, 2025	UPIC Hearing takes place.	The Commission officially directs the PIO to dispose of the RTI application and submit a compliance report. This is a direct, legally binding order.
August 19, 2025	PIO provides a response via Letter No. 2041.	This response was deemed incomplete and unsatisfactory by the appellant.
September 30, 2025	PIO issues a new letter in response to the appellant’s objections.	The PIO evasively refers back to the August 19 letter for all five questions, signaling a refusal to furnish new, complete information.
October 8, 2025	Next hearing scheduled before the UP Information Commission.	A critical date to address the PIO’s continued non-compliance and the validity of the September 30 response.

The gap between the initial application (January 6) and the UPIC’s directive (July 3) highlights a delay of nearly six months before the matter was even addressed by the Commission, let alone resolved. More critically, the period between the Commission’s order (July 3) and the September 30 response shows that even a direct judicial/quasi-judicial order was allegedly met with an inadequate, formulaic reply. This sequence of events forms the basis of the appellant’s claim of “clear and willful attempt to obstruct the process of justice.”

---

3. The Five Core Questions and the PIO’s Evasive Response ❓

At the heart of the conflict are five specific questions, all crucial for understanding the administrative functioning and decision-making process within the PM Kisan scheme at the district level.

The five questions, translated from Hindi, essentially sought the following operational and official details:

1. Details of the employee who rejected an application.
2. Government order (शासनादेश) for uploading certified revenue records.
3. Verification status/details of Shri Keshav Pratap Singh’s application.
4. Details of employees working in the Sadar Tehsil.
5. Guidelines for online application processing.

The PIO’s response on September 30, 2025, to the appellant’s objections is a near-identical paragraph for all five points:

“…Point No. 1 has been informed through letter No. 2041 dated 19-08-2025.³ Secondly, Point No. 2 has been informed through letter No. 2041 dated 19-08-2025.⁴ Thirdly, Point No. 3 has already been informed through letter No. 2041 dated 19-08-2025.⁵ Furthermore, Point No. 4 has already been informed through letter No. 2041 dated 19-08-2025.⁶ Lastly, Point No. 5 has already been informed through letter No. 2041 dated 19-08-2025.”

This response is a textbook example of evasion. By simply referring back to a previous letter (Letter No. 2041 of August 19, 2025) that was already deemed unsatisfactory and incomplete, the PIO effectively nullifies the appellant’s objection and avoids providing the substantive information anew, as directed by the UPIC. The appellant’s contention that the PIO is “repeatedly referring to a non-compliant previous letter” is strongly supported by the document’s content.

---

4. The Appellant’s Fierce Representation: Calling for Justice and Penalty ⚖️

In response to the PIO’s September 30 letter, the appellant filed a strongly worded Representation on October 2, 2025, addressed to the Presiding Officer, Smt. Shakuntala Gautam. This representation moves beyond seeking information and directly addresses the PIO’s conduct, accusing it of being “fundamentally false and contemptuous.”

The key arguments and observations made by the appellant are:

• False Assertion: The claim that the information was “already informed” is false, as the very reason for the appeal was the failure to receive satisfactory information.
• Contempt of Commission: The PIO’s action is seen as undermining the Commission’s directive issued on July 3, 2025.
• Pattern of Defiance: The PIO’s conduct establishes a “clear pattern of defiance” against the spirit of the RTI Act and the lawful orders of the State Information Commission.⁷
• Wasting Public Resources: The need for repeated hearings and representations due to PIO non-compliance is a wastage of both the appellant’s and the Commission’s time and resources.

Given this alleged willful defiance, the appellant has made a severe Prayer to the Commission, seeking strong punitive action, a recourse provided under the RTI Act:

1. Take immediate cognizance of the PIO’s misleading letter.
2. Issue a show-cause notice for disobeying the Commission’s order.
3. Impose the maximum penalty under Section 20 of the RTI Act (which allows for a fine of up to ⁸$₹25,000$).⁹
4. Issue a final, strict directive to the PIO to provide complete information.

---

5. Looking Ahead: The October 8, 2025 Hearing 🏛️

The upcoming hearing on October 8, 2025, is pivotal. The UP Information Commission, presided over by Smt. Shakuntala Gautam, will have to adjudicate on two primary matters:

1. The Substantive Information: Whether the PIO has actually complied with the spirit of the RTI Act by providing the requested information, or if the September 30 letter is merely a restatement of a previously rejected incomplete response.
2. The PIO’s Conduct: Whether the PIO’s actions constitute a “malafide” refusal to provide information or an obstruction of the process, justifying the imposition of the maximum penalty under Section 20.

The outcome of this case will send a crucial message across the administration in Uttar Pradesh. If the Commission finds the PIO’s conduct to be deliberately evasive, imposing a maximum penalty will strongly reinforce the authority of the Information Commission and the sanctity of the RTI Act, ensuring that public servants treat the law and the public’s right to know with the seriousness they deserve. Conversely, any lenient view may embolden non-compliant PIOs and further frustrate the mechanism of transparency.

The appeal filed by Yogi M P Singh is not just about five questions related to PM Kisan; it’s a test case for accountability and the supremacy of the Right to Information in the face of bureaucratic inertia and defiance. The fight for transparency continues.

---

Would you like to search for the outcome or subsequent updates to this case following the October 8, 2025 hearing?

Case Summary of RTI Appeal case(प्रकरण सारांश)

This case documents the Right to Information (RTI) appeal filed by Shri Yogi M P Singh of Mirzapur, Uttar Pradesh. The appeal challenges the failure of the Public Information Officer (PIO) at the Office of the Deputy Director of Agriculture, Mirzapur, to provide complete and satisfactory information regarding the PM Kisan Samman Nidhi scheme. Despite clear directives from the Uttar Pradesh Information Commission, the PIO has provided evasive and repetitive responses, prompting further representations from the appellant. This interactive file tracks the key events, central issues, and official documents related to this ongoing pursuit of transparency and accountability.

Case Identifiers (प्रकरण संख्या)

File Number: S09/A/1087/2025

Registration No: A-20250401292

Commission: UP Information Commission, Hearing Room S-9

Presiding Officer: Smt. Shakuntala Gautam

This page is an informational summary of RTI Appeal S09/A/1087/2025.

Status Verified By Sub- District/ Block and Pending for Approval at District Level

PM-Kisan portal is not working is key issue