The RTI Wall of Silence: When Police Accountability Hits a Dead End 🛑

RTI Act Violated: Is ‘Investigation in Progress’ a License to Conceal Records?

Naresh Kumar Jaiswal, a resident of Mirzapur, Uttar Pradesh, is learning a hard lesson in transparency as he navigates the complex landscape of bureaucratic governance.
In his quest to uncover the truth behind alleged violations and to ensure that justice is served, he encountered the formidable RTI Wall of Silence, which has become a significant obstacle for many citizens seeking accountability.
After filing a Right to Information (RTI) application (Reg. No. SPMZR/R/2025/60241) to track the police department’s compliance with a Uttar Pradesh Human Rights Commission (UPHRC) Order, Naresh anticipated a transparent process that would illuminate the actions taken by the authorities.
However, instead of receiving prompt and clear answers, he hit a frustrating bureaucratic wall, finding himself ensnared in an intricate web of delayed responses and evasive communication, which only deepened his concerns about the efficacy of the very systems meant to protect citizen rights.

His RTI, filed on September 8, 2025, wasn’t asking for sensitive details of an ongoing criminal case. Instead, it sought five simple points of administrative information, including:

1. The name of the staff who received the UPHRC order.
2. Certified copies of the file notings on the communication.
3. Any Action Taken Report (ATR) issued so far.
4. The name of the staff currently handling the matter, crucial information blocked by the RTI Wall of Silence.

The Evasive Reply: Denying the RTI through RTI Wall of Silence

The Public Information Officer (PIO) did not respond by the October 8, 2025, deadline, leaving many stakeholders eagerly awaiting clarity.
The reply was finally sent on October 14, 2025, but it fell short of expectations. The core of the reply was a denial of all information because the investigation is “in progress,” which raises significant concerns about transparency and accountability.
This response, or lack thereof, highlights a pattern of behavior where public authorities evade their responsibility to provide information, effectively creating a barrier for those seeking answers.
This is another instance reinforcing that the RTI Wall of Silence is becoming a concerning trend, signaling a possible decline in civic engagement and trust in public institutions, and raising questions about the future of rights to information in a democratic society.

Crucially, the PIO then advised the applicant to “again apply for RTI” after the investigation is finished.

This response is a clear subversion of the RTI Act:

• The PIO is legally obliged to give all available information. Administrative details like “who received the file?” or “what noting are on the register?” are existing records, not part of the final inquiry outcome.
• Instructing an applicant to file a fresh RTI application for the same information is improper. This tactic is used to delay the process and avoid statutory obligations. It forms part of the RTI Wall of Silence strategy.

---

The Critical Standoff: A Challenge to Accountability

The issue goes beyond a mere delay; it challenges the very principle of accountability, especially when dealing with a directive from the Human Rights Commission that is designed to uphold foundational human rights.
This situation raises critical questions about the transparency and integrity of our institutions.
The public has a right to know if and how their institutions are responding to oversight bodies, as effective communication fosters trust and encourages civic engagement in democratic processes.
It is vital that the public understands not only the actions taken but also the reasoning behind them, as this knowledge empowers citizens and enhances the overall governance framework.
Without timely and clear information, the potential for misuse of power looms larger, creating an environment of suspicion and undermining the rule of law.

The police office is refusing to reveal who handled the UPHRC’s order. This action effectively creates an internal shield of secrecy. It reinforces the RTI Wall of Silence. This wall of silence obstructs essential transparency.

The Plea to the Appellate Authority

The first PIO response was unsatisfactory, leading to a considerable sense of frustration for the applicant. This prompting motivated the applicant to file a First Appeal with the Senior Superintendent of Police (SSP) of Mirzapur, who is tasked with overseeing such appeals and ensuring that justice is served.
As the designated Appellate Authority, the SSP holds a crucial role in addressing grievances and providing transparent resolutions. However, as time progressed, it became evident that the First Appeal was still pending, and no decision was forthcoming despite the applicant’s hopes for a timely resolution.
This lack of communication and progress compelled Mr. Jaiswal to take further action, leading him to send a follow-up email representation on October 16, 2025, emphasizing the urgency of his situation and requesting a prompt update on the status of his appeal, hoping that his persistent efforts would finally yield a satisfactory response.

In his urgent plea, he requests the SSP to:

1. Speed up the decision on the pending appeal.
2. Direct the PIO to promptly release the available administrative information within 7 days. Such delays contribute to the RTI Wall of Silence, a situation in need of rectification.
3. Guarantee accountability for the delayed and non-compliant response.

The ball is now in the SSP’s court. The resolution of this appeal will be a critical test. It will show if the highest police authority in Mirzapur prioritises transparency and compliance with the law. Alternatively, it may allow the “investigation in progress” excuse to become a convenient tool for administrative evasion, perpetuating the RTI Wall of Silence.

---

What are your thoughts? Should an ongoing investigation be an automatic reason to deny administrative RTI queries? Share your comments below!

UPHRC directed S.P. Mirzapur to act in accordance with law in matter of Sadhana

PIO and FAA in office of superintendent of police Mirzapur have made a practice to deny every information sought by information seekers