Unveiling the Truth: Why a Citizen is Fighting the RTI System in Uttar Pradesh
An ordinary citizen’s quest for transparent governance in Uttar Pradesh has escalated to the state’s highest information body amid an increasingly complex landscape of governmental accountability. This is part of the wider challenge of confronting the inefficiencies while fighting the RTI system, which is designed to empower citizens but often encounters obstacles.
Mahima Maurya of Mirzapur took action by filing a Second Appeal under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005, illustrating her commitment to ensuring clarity in public administration. She is boldly challenging the responses from the local police authority, which has not only delayed but also obscured the information she seeks.
Her case highlights a critical concern regarding the systemic issues within the information dissemination process. A citizen asks for specific rules and government orders to understand the legal framework governing their rights, yet instead of providing these essential documents, the Public Information Officer (PIO) responds with irrelevant investigation reports and justifications that do not pertain to the request.
This divergence from procedure raises questions about transparency, accountability, and the fundamental right to information, further complicating the relationship between the citizens and the authorities tasked with serving them.
This situation isn’t just about a denied piece of information. It’s a fight against the alleged deliberate evasion of the RTI Act’s core purpose. The RTI Act aims to promote transparency and accountability. Indeed, confronting these systemic barriers is part of the struggle in fighting the RTI system. This effort has become an uphill battle. More citizens face hurdles in challenging these systems.
The Original Petition about Fighting the RTI System: Seeking the ‘Rulebook,’ Not the ‘Runaround’
In the battle with the RTI framework, Mahima Maurya’s original RTI application, filed on June 9, 2025, was highly specific and meticulously crafted. She was seeking the official, documented basis for certain police actions (or lack thereof) in a case concerning assault on a woman, aiming to uncover any discrepancies in the law enforcement responses that seemed to prioritize bureaucracy over justice.
Mahima’s intention was not only to hold the police accountable for their actions — or inactions — but also to shed light on the broader implications of systemic failures in protecting vulnerable individuals within society.
By filing this RTI application, she aimed to provoke a sense of accountability and transparency, thereby ensuring that no woman would have to endure similar injustices in silence, and to encourage other citizens to utilize the RTI mechanism as a potent tool for social change and reform.
Her core questions were focused on documentary evidence:
- Copies of Government Orders/Circulars that would justify not mentioning the main victim’s name in an FIR or NCR.
- Copies of Orders make a Station House Officer powerless. They can leave the officer powerless to take action in cases of assault on women or vulnerable persons.
- The official reason (not a justification or assessment) for not registering the FIR, despite a medical test being conducted.
The Response: Irrelevant Reports and Deemed Refusal
Fighting the RTI system became challenging. The responses from both the Public Information Officer (PIO), Sri Om Prakash Singh contributed to this challenge. Additionally, the responses from the First Appellate Authority (FAA), Somen Verma (SSP) are the core of the Appellant’s grievance.
PIO’s Action: Explanations Over Evidence
Instead of supplying the requested copies of administrative instructions or rules (Government Orders/Memos), the PIO provided:
- Internal investigation reports (dated 05.01.25 and 02.07.25), which the Appellant contends are irrelevant to the information sought.
- A report/justification detailing the background of a dispute. It includes information about cross-NCRs and minor injuries. The Appellant’s alleged habit of filing repeated applications is mentioned instead of the specific reason for non-registration of the FIR.
The Appellant argues that this is a deemed refusal under the RTI Act because the relevant documents were completely withheld. The process of fighting inherent issues within this system should guarantee transparency. Officials have resisted these efforts while tackling the RTI challenges.
FAA’s Role: Endorsing the Flawed Reply
The First Appellate Authority’s role is to rectify flawed PIO responses. The Appellant alleges that the FAA has not corrected the PIO’s misleading and incomplete reply. Therefore, they say the FAA has effectively condoned the furnishing of incomplete and misleading information. By condoning such practices, fighting against an inefficient RTI system becomes significantly tougher. This encouragement of systemic flaws makes the process more difficult.
The Relief Sought: More Than Just Information
In her Second Appeal to the Uttar Pradesh Information Commission, Mahima Maurya is asking for a strong intervention to emphasize the importance of transparency and accountability in governance.
She firmly believes that an effective implementation of the RTI Act is crucial for empowering citizens and ensuring that their voices are heard.
Her prayers are clear and direct: she seeks not only the resolution of her specific queries but also a broader commitment from the Commission to uphold the spirit of the RTI Act by fostering an environment where information is accessible and public authorities are held responsible for their actions.
- Instruct the PIO. They should supply the information in a specific, point-wise manner. This includes copies of Government Orders, Circulars, and Office Memos. Make sure this is done in a time-bound manner.
- Impose a Penalty under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act on the PIO, Om Prakash Singh. He intentionally provided incomplete information. He also gave misleading information.
- Recommend Disciplinary Action under Section 20(2) against the PIO for his alleged malafide action.
This case serves as a sharp reminder.
The RTI Act is a powerful tool for democracy. Nonetheless, its effectiveness relies on the good faith and accountability of Public Authorities. When officials substitute documentary evidence with personal justifications, the entire structure of transparent governance is put at risk.
The struggle for effective use of RTI continues. The Uttar Pradesh Information Commission will now decide. They must decide whether to enforce the citizen’s right to know the official rules governing the police force.
Challenging systems like the RTI can be daunting. Yet, maintaining transparent governance is vital. This is especially true in the broader context of fighting these challenges within the RTI system.
What are your thoughts on this case? Can an internal investigation report replace a requested Government Order copy under the RTI Act? The ongoing confrontation with the RTI system certainly challenges this notion.
Welcome UPICR20250000353
UTTAR PRADESH INFORMATION COMMISSION
Second Appeal under section 19(3) of the Right to Information Act, 2005
Appeal Registration Number – A-20251001372
Applied Date : 18/10/2025 08:27:49 AM
Struggle of woman for justice in U.P.
Mirzapur police is not registering FIR of Mahima Maurya is reflection of justice
Facing a similar challenge? Share the details in the box below, and our team of experts will do their best to help.