---

🚨 The RTI Clock Ticking: When a 5-Day Rule Turns Into a 32-Day Ordeal 🚨in the Office of District Judge Gorakhpur

A landmark transparency law, the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005, is built on strict deadlines that are crucial for ensuring the timely disclosure of information to the public.
What happens when the officers responsible for upholding the law violate its most fundamental timelines? This breach of protocol not only undermines the very essence of the RTI Act but also erodes public trust in the institutions meant to serve them.
This situation becomes particularly concerning when it involves those in the Office of District Judge Gorakhpur, where the expectation is that legal officers adhere rigorously to these timelines to foster accountability and transparency within the judicial system.
The implications of such violations can be far-reaching, affecting not just individuals seeking information but also the overall integrity of the legal framework established to protect citizens’ rights.

We examine a recent case involving a significant breach of the Section 6(3) transfer provision. This breach took place at the office of the District Judge in Gorakhpur. This breach led to an undue delay in accessing public information.

The Core of the Complaint is Office of District Judge Gorakhpur: A Violation of Section 6(3)

The RTI Act mandates a specific procedure that ensures transparency and accountability within government bodies. If an application for information relates to a different authority than the one it was initially submitted to, the authority receiving the application must take the necessary steps to forward it appropriately.
Specifically, the first Public Information Officer (PIO) who receives the application is responsible for transferring the application to the correct authority without delay. This transfer must happen within five days of its receipt, ensuring that the applicant does not face unnecessary delays in obtaining the requested information.
It is crucial to understand that this is a non-negotiable, statutory deadline established by the RTI Act. The adherence to this timeline not only facilitates the efficient functioning of the information dissemination process but also reinforces the rights of citizens to access information, thereby promoting greater transparency in government operations.
Failure to comply with this requirement can result in accountability measures against the PIO, underscoring the importance of diligence and expediency in handling such requests.

In this instance, the deadline was missed by a landslide.

Detail	First Public Authority	Transferred Public Authority
First Filing Date	13/09/2025	N/A
Actual Transfer Date	N/A	15/10/2025
Statutory Limit for Transfer	5 days	N/A
Total Days Taken for Transfer	32 days	N/A

The CPIO of the Office of the District Judge, Gorakhpur, took 32 days to transfer the RTI application (Reg. No. DNGKP/R/2025/60049) to the Family Court, Gorakhpur, thus directly contravening the mandatory 5-day limit under Section 6(3).

---

The Domino Effect: Consequential Delay in Access

The impact of this starting delay is simple: it defeats the entire purpose of the RTI Act’s time-bound framework, which was specifically designed to ensure timely access to information for citizens.
This delay not only undermines the efficiency of the act but also erodes public trust in the system meant to promote transparency and accountability.
When the initial process is hindered, it creates a ripple effect that stalls the entire mechanism, resulting in longer waiting periods for individuals seeking crucial information.
Ultimately, this situation diminishes the act’s effectiveness, leaving many citizens disillusioned and less likely to engage with the RTI process in the future.

• The mandatory 30-day response window (Section 7(1)) for the applicant’s information inquiry should have started earlier. Still, they delayed by 27 days. This occurred notably in the District Judge’s office in Gorakhpur.
• The team originally set the deadline for receiving the information to 18/10/2025, but the delayed transfer severely prejudiced the process.
• The applicant, Naresh Kumar Jaiswal, is still awaiting the requested ‘Action Taken Report’ on a prior representation.

This failure in prompt transfer is not just an administrative error. It is a direct violation. This violation prevents citizens from accessing information guaranteed by law.

---

The Appeal: Seeking Accountability and Action

Mr. Jaiswal has filed a First Appeal under Section 19(1) of the RTI Act, a crucial step in seeking transparency and accountability from government authorities. He submitted it to the First Appellate Authority (FAA) of the District Court, Gorakhpur, navigating through the intricate legal framework designed to ensure citizens can obtain information from public bodies.
The appeal seeks three critical reliefs: the first being the provision of relevant documents that were previously denied, the second aimed at clarifying the reasons behind the original refusal of information, and the third requesting a review of the procedures followed by the FAA in handling his initial application.
This initiative not only exemplifies Mr. Jaiswal’s commitment to exercising his rights under the RTI Act but also highlights the importance of transparency in governance to foster an environment of trust and accountability among public institutions.

1. Immediate Cognizance: A formal acknowledgment of the clear violation of Section 6(3) by the defaulting CPIO.
2. Swift Information Release: A directive to the concerned PIO (Family Court Gorakhpur) to give the requested information promptly.
3. Disciplinary Action & Penalty: A demand to start necessary disciplinary action. There is a plea to impose a penalty under Section 20 of the RTI Act. This is against the PIO responsible for the 32-day delay within the Office of District Judge Gorakhpur.

Why Section 20 is Key: Section 20 allows for a penalty of ₹250 per day. This can go up to a limit of ₹25,000. It can be imposed on a PIO for unreasonable delays or malafide denial of information. It is the core provision for ensuring PIO accountability.

This appeal’s resolution will remind Public Authorities across the board of a crucial aspect. The deadlines in the RTI Act are not advisory. They represent statutory obligations designed to guarantee public transparency.

---

What are your thoughts on this violation? Have you faced similar issues with delayed transfers or responses under the RTI Act? Share your experience in the comments below!

Would you like me to draft a more concise version of this post? Or should I focus on the potential penalty under Section 20?

High court at Allahabad must guarantee transparency in listing and hearing of cases

Additional district judge Budaun again denied CD of court functioning