RTI Alarm: Mirzapur Citizen Fights Back Against 105 Days of Silence

When the Right to Information Becomes a Battle for Compliance

The Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005, is a powerful tool for the Indian public, serving as a cornerstone in the quest for transparency and accountability within the government.
In recent discussions about improving transparency, the innovative concept of an RTI Alarm has been put forward as a means to remind citizens to utilise this tool effectively in their everyday lives.
This initiative aims to empower citizens not only to request information but also to understand their rights and responsibilities under the act, promoting a well-informed electorate.
By providing clear guidelines and reminders, the RTI Alarm encourages individuals to seek answers to their queries, thereby enhancing civic engagement.
It is designed to foster transparency and accountability in government operations and decision-making processes.
This ensures citizens get the information they need from government departments promptly, making the RTI Alarm a crucial initiative that can significantly bridge the gap between the government and the people, fostering a culture of accountability and informed participation over time.

Yet, as a recent case from Mirzapur, Uttar Pradesh, clearly illustrates, the process isn’t always smooth. Mr. Shivam Gupta had to file a Second Appeal with the Uttar Pradesh Information Commission. He faced a staggering 105 days of total silence from the local Revenue Department officials.

---

The Breakdown created RTI Alarm: A Timeline of Statutory Violations

Mr. Gupta’s appeal highlights a clear-cut case of the Public Information Officer (PIO) allegedly neglecting to adhere to mandatory legal deadlines, which are crucial for ensuring transparent governance and accountability.
This behaviour raises significant concerns about the efficiency and responsiveness of the public information system, as it undermines trust between citizens and their government.
Compounding the issue, the First Appellate Authority (FAA) also allegedly neglected to meet these deadlines, further ringing the RTI alarm for non-compliance and leaving citizens in a lurch, uncertain of their rights and the proper functioning of the legal frameworks designed to serve them.
Such a pattern of negligence not only contravenes established legal protocols but also emphasises an urgent need for reform in the system to protect citizens’ rights to information and accountability.

Date	Action	Statutory Requirement	Status/Violation
07/07/2025	RTI Application filed with Tehsildar Lalganj (PIO)	Information due by 06/08/2025 (30 days under Section 7(1))	PIO failed to respond.
06/08/2025	Deadline for PIO response expires.	Statutory duty to furnish information or formally reject request.	Deemed Refusal (Section 7(2)).
13/08/2025	First Appeal filed with SDM Lalganj (FAA)	FAA required to dispose of the appeal by 12/09/2025 (30 days under Section 19(6))	FAA failed to pass any order.
20/10/2025	Second Appeal filed with UP Information Commission.	A cumulative delay of 105 days since the original RTI filing.	Persistent violation of the RTI Act.

Export to Sheets

The failure to respond at both levels of the RTI hierarchy essentially strips the citizen of their legal right. This forces them to escalate the matter to the state’s highest information body, showcasing the need for an RTI alarm system to reinforce adherence to the Act.

---

The Core Demand: Information, Penalty, and Accountability

The Second Appeal isn’t just about getting the information—it’s about ensuring the framework works effectively to serve its purpose. It acts as a crucial mechanism for accountability and transparency within the system.
Mr. Gupta’s appeal seeks relief under three key heads: the necessity for clarity in the processes followed, the urgency of timely responses, and the implementation of fair practices.
By addressing these aspects, Mr. Gupta aims not only to obtain the information he seeks but also to strengthen the overall framework of public information access, thereby ensuring that future appeals are handled with greater efficiency and integrity.

1. Immediate Furnishing of Information

The primary goal is to receive the documents requested in the original RTI application (DMOMR/R/2025/60145). These documents reportedly pertain to the SVAMITVA Scheme. They also concern allegations of corruption/malfunctioning within the Lalganj Tehsil, effectively sounding an RTI alarm on the issue.

2. Imposition of Penalty on the PIO ⚖️

Under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act, the Information Commission shall impose a penalty of ₹250 per day. This penalty can go up to a top of ₹25,000. It is imposed on a PIO who has failed, without reasonable cause, to give information within the stipulated time.

Mr. Gupta is asking the Commission to impose this penalty. The penalty is requested for the PIO, Diksha, Tehsildar Lalganj. It is due to the over 70-day delay past the first deadline (06/08/2025). This is a crucial step to deter future bureaucratic indifference and activate a robust RTI alarm system.

3. Disciplinary Action Against Both Officers

The appeal also requests the Commission to recommend disciplinary action against both the PIO and the FAA. This includes Gulab Chandra Second, SDM Lalganj, under Section 20(2). Both officers have completely and continuously failed to comply with statutory timelines. This failure suggests a “pattern of resistance to transparency.” It warrants a sterner response, justified by the provisions of an RTI Alarm.

---

Why This Matters to Every Citizen

This case from Mirzapur is more than an administrative issue; it serves as a critical litmus test for the effectiveness of the RTI Act itself.
When Public Information Officers (PIOs) and First Appellate Authorities (FAAs) fail to uphold their duties by either ignoring requests or providing insufficient responses, they not only erode public trust but also cripple the very mechanisms designed to foster transparency and accountability in governance.
This situation underscores the necessity for rigorous enforcement of RTI provisions, as the public’s right to information is fundamentally linked to the quality of democracy.
The case highlights a broader issue of systemic apathy that can undermine citizens’ faith in governmental institutions, revealing the urgent need for reform and better training for those in charge of ensuring compliance with these laws.
Ultimately, the implications of this case reflect on the vitality of civic engagement and the expectation that public servants act with integrity and diligence in serving the interests of the citizens.

The Uttar Pradesh Information Commission now faces the task of not only securing the information for Mr. Gupta but also sending a strong message: Statutory deadlines are sacrosanct. Officials who fail to comply will be held personally accountable.

---

What are your thoughts on this situation? Have you faced similar delays when filing an RTI? Share your experience in the comments.

Sadhana Tiwari sought information from SDM Lalganj for arbitrary report

Asked for document to process inheritance now Tehsildar running away