Introduction: RTI Battle Against Police

Specifically, the Station House Officer of MauAima Police Station, Prayagraj, took no action. He ignored the representation forwarded by the Sub Divisional Magistrate Phoolpur regarding pressing local concerns.
Consequently, the appellant sought information from ACP Phoolpur to establish transparency and accountability. Indeed, these details are critical for maintaining community trust in law enforcement.
However, officers are now running away from providing this information. Indeed, this failure lies at the very crux of the ongoing RTI Battle Against Police in Prayagraj. This persistent lack of cooperation hinders justice and raises serious questions about police integrity in addressing grievances.

RTI Battle Against Police in Prayagraj: Second Appeal Filed Over Misleading Information

In a classic case, appellant Yogi M. P. Singh escalated an RTI query. It highlights the challenges citizens face in seeking accountability.
Specifically, he filed a Second Appeal before the Uttar Pradesh Information Commission against the Police Commissionerate Prayagraj.

In addition, this RTI Battle shows how specific questions about police action were met with unrelated reports. Ultimately, this led to a determined fight for transparency.
Consequently, the situation raises key questions regarding administrative accountability. It also challenges the overall effectiveness of the RTI framework.

Furthermore, Singh’s persistent efforts highlight the broader struggle for clarity. Citizens often receive vague responses from authorities.
Ultimately, this episode emphasizes the urgent need for police reforms. Moreover, it underscores the vital role of advocacy in protecting citizens’ rights.

Case Overview: The Key Details

• Appellant: Yogi M. P. Singh
• Email: yogimpsingh@gmail.com
• Mobile: 7379105911
• Address: Surekapuram Colony, Jabalpur Road, Mirzapur City, UTTAR PRADESH, 231001
• Public Authority: Police Commissionerate Prayagraj
• RTI Application No: SSPPY/R/2025/60508 (Filed on 27/06/2025)
• First Appeal No: SSPPY/A/2025/60139 (Filed on 30/07/2025)
• Second Appeal Registration No: A-20251000262 (Filed on 03/10/2025)

The Information Sought: A Simple, Direct Query

To begin with, the appellant filed an RTI application seeking straightforward, point-wise information as part of this RTI Battle Against Police. It concerned the action taken by the Station House Officer (SHO) of Mauaima police station on an order issued by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate (SDM), Phoolpur. In fact, this step marked another stage in the RTI battle. In particular, the three questions were:

1. First, please provide the action taken by the Station House Officer, police station Mauaima, District Prayagraj. Specifically, detail the compliance with the order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Phoolpur.
2. Second, please provide the name of the sub-inspector to whom the Station House Officer, Mauaima, referred the matter to take action.
3. Third, suppose the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Phoolpur, has not taken action. In that case, the Public Information Officer must provide the reason. This is required under Section 4(1)(d) of the RTI Act, 2005.

The Official Response: Evasion and Dismissal

Public Information Officer (PIO) Response: On 30/07/2025, the PIO, ACP Phoolpur, disposed of the request. He provided a one-line reply with an attachment. Consequently, this sparked a heightened stage in the RTI Battle Against Police.

• Reply: “अपेक्षित आख्या प्रेषित है।” (The desired report is attached.)
• Issue: However, the attached document was merely an investigation report concerning a land dispute. As a result, it failed to answer the three questions. This outcome fueled the RTI Battle further.

First Appellate Authority (FAA) Order: Dissatisfied with this reply, the appellant filed a first appeal. Subsequently, on 02/08/2025, the FAA dismissed the appeal. The FAA was the Additional Commissioner of Police, Prayagraj.

• Order: “याची को जनसूचना अधिकार अधिनियम 2005 के तहत प्रार्थना पत्र में मांगी गयी सूचना नियमानुसार आधिकारी ने दिनांक 30.07.25 को प्रदान की है। अपील पोषणीय न होने के कारण अधिकारियों ने प्रत्यावेदन को निरस्त करते हुये निस्तारित किया है।” (The officer has provided the information sought by the petitioner on 30.07.25 as per rules. Since the appeal is not maintainable, officials rejected and disposed of it.)
• Issue: In particular, the order did not explain why the PIO’s response seemed adequate. Indeed, it clearly evaded the question. Instead, the order upheld the PIO’s flawed reply without discussion.

RTI Battle Against Police in Prayagraj: Grounds for the Second Appeal

As a consequence, the appellant has escalated the matter to the State Information Commission. In doing so, he cited several key grounds in this RTI Battle Against Police:

• Irrelevant and Misleading Information: The PIO deliberately avoided the specific questions. Indeed, an unrelated report was provided, clearly attempting to mislead and conceal the requested information.
• Failure of the First Appellate Authority: Furthermore, the FAA failed to apply his mind. He arbitrarily dismissed the appeal as “not maintainable” without reasoning, thereby failing his statutory duty.
• Violation of the RTI Act: Ultimately, the actions of both officers defeat the core purpose of the RTI Act. After all, this act aims to promote transparency and accountability in public authorities.
• Denial of Right to Reason: By withholding the reason for inaction in Point 3, the PIO violated Section 4(1)(d). This section mandates proactive disclosure of reasons for administrative decisions.

Relief Sought from the Commission

Specifically, the appellant has requested the Hon’ble Commission to intervene in this RTI Battle Against Police to:

a) Admit the appeal for a hearing. Furthermore, ensure all involved parties can present their case.
b) Direct the PIO to provide complete, specific, and point-wise information free of cost. This step fulfills the RTI Act’s mandate while promoting transparency and accountability.
c) Impose a penalty on the PIO under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act for furnishing misleading information. Such conduct undermines the Act and hampers public access to information.
d) Recommend disciplinary action against the FAA for arbitrarily dismissing the first appeal. Such actions erode trust and discourage individuals from seeking information.
e) Pass any other order in the interest of justice and transparency. In doing so, recognize the need to uphold the integrity of public information systems.

ACP PHOOLPUR did not provide information so second appeal made against him

Appeal made against A.C.P. Phoolpur Prayagaraj in RTI Battle Against Police

Appeal made against A.C.P. Phoolpur Prayagaraj for providing misleading information regarding the recent allegations that have surfaced concerning the transparency of information shared by local authorities. This appeal seeks to address the serious implications of disseminating false or misleading data, which not only affects public trust but also undermines the integrity of governance. In light of this situation, it is crucial to scrutinize the accuracy of the information provided and ensure that appropriate corrective measures are taken to uphold accountability and foster a more informed community.

Related Posts like RTI Battle Against Police

• RTI Battle in Prayagraj for Transparency Explained
• Tehsildar Phoolpur & RTI Violation Exposed
• Tehsildar Misconduct: Land Encroachment in Prayagraj
• Exposing Revenue Corruption: The Phoolpur Land Scam
• ACP Phoolpur Denies RTI: Legal Implications Explained

Related reading: ACP Manoj Kumar Singh: Service Details Revealed