Key Takeaways (Legal Analysis of RTI Appeal)
- An RTI First Appeal was filed on December 6, 2025, regarding information on police investigation NCR No. 104/2024 in Mirzapur.
- Mrs Mahima Maurya challenges the Public Information Officer’s (PIO) refusal to disclose requested information, alleging evasion and irrelevance.
- The appeal highlights failures in providing certified copies of the Charge Sheet. It also points out missing treatment documents and medical reports related to the investigation.
- The PIO’s inadequate responses to inquiries on grievance limits and police action demonstrate a misunderstanding of the RTI application.
- The appellant seeks directives for transparent disclosure of required documents. They also seek accountability for the PIO’s incomplete responses. This emphasizes the legal imperative for information transparency.
📰 Legal Analysis of RTI Appeal: Seeking Clarity and Certified Copies in Mirzapur Case
On December 6, 2025, someone formally registered an RTI First Appeal directed to the office of the Superintendent of Police in Mirzapur. The appeal concerned the failure to provide information about a police investigation. This investigation relates to NCR No. 104/2024. In this article, we present a Legal Analysis of RTI Appeal in relation to the case and the information requested.
Mrs Mahima Maurya filed the appeal. Her registration number is SPMZR/A/2025/60056. The appeal challenges the response issued by the Public Information Officer (PIO) on November 27, 2025. According to the appellant, the response effectively refused access to the requested information. The First Appellate Authority, Mr. Somen Verma, SSP Mirzapur, addresses the appeal.
1. 🛑 Grounds for Appeal: PIO’s Failure to Disclose
The core of the appeal lies in the assertion that the PIO acted through the Vindhyachal Police Station. It is claimed that the responses provided were evasive, irrelevant, or incorrect. This pertains to the original five-point RTI application. (Legal Analysis of RTI Appeal)
A. The “Transfer to Court” Refusal (Points 1, 2, and 3) (Legal Analysis of RTI Appeal)
The appellant sought certified copies of the Charge Sheet. They also requested the original treatment document provided for investigation. Additionally, they sought medical reports received from the Medical Board.
- PIO’s Reply: The applicant must obtain the documents from the Hon’ble Court. They have sent them there.
- Appeal Ground: The appeal states that the police station acts as the custodian of the records. It generates these records at the time of the RTI application. Therefore, it cannot refuse to provide the information. The court did not justify the refusal simply because someone later submitted the original set. The Public Authority retains copies of all investigation records, including the Charge Sheet, reports, and case diary entries. Under the RTI Act, they must give the applicant certified true copies of these records. By directing the applicant to the court, they effectively deny access to information.
B. Irrelevant Answer to Grievance Limit (Point 4) (Legal Analysis of RTI Appeal)
The appellant asked about the highest prescribed limit or authority for submitting grievances to higher police officials. This was after receiving an initial unsatisfactory response. They inquired about authorities like the SSP.
- PIO’s Reply: There is no fixed time limit for filing a charge sheet once the investigations are complete.
- Appeal Ground: The PIO completely misunderstood the question. They provided information about the time limit for filing a charge sheet, which they did not request. This serves as a clear example of failing to supply relevant information and lacking due diligence.
C. Vague Reply on Police Action (Point 5)
The appellant requested specific details of the action taken by the police. They also asked for the conclusion reached regarding the thumb fracture mentioned in the treatment report. (Legal Analysis of RTI Appeal)
- PIO’s Reply: Stated, “Relevant information is attached to the case diary.“
- Appeal Ground: This reply is vague and insufficient. The appeal argues that the PIO should have provided the actual findings. It should have included the specific action. It should also have included relevant excerpts from the Case Diary/Report detailing the police’s conclusion on the specific injury. Instead, it gave a generic reference to the case record.
2. 🏛️ Relief Sought by the Appellant
The appeal requests that the First Appellate Authority (SSP Mirzapur) intervene and issue a directive to the PIO to:
- Immediately provide certified true copies of the Charge Sheet and all Medical Reports/documents held in the police records.
- Provide the correct and specific information regarding the prescribed limits (if any) for filing grievances with senior officials.
- Provide the specific details of the police action and conclusion recorded in the case diary concerning the fracture injury.
- Initiate the necessary disciplinary action. The concerned PIO/official, the UPIC, should discipline the PIO under Section 20 of the RTI Act. The PIO under Section 20 of the RTI Act provided incomplete and irrelevant information.
That’s a very insightful request. Examine the grounds for appeal against the PIO’s reply point by point. Include supporting legal justification. This approach provides a strong basis for the First Appellate Authority’s (FAA) review.
Here is a structured legal analysis and comment on the denial for each point of the original RTI application: (Legal Analysis of RTI Appeal)
1. 📂 Points 1, 2, & 3: Denial of Certified Copies of Investigation Records (Legal Analysis of RTI Appeal)
| PIO’s Denial/Statement | Applicant’s Argument | Legal Comment & Support |
| “Information sought is related to the Hon’ble Court. Please obtain it by requesting the Hon’ble Court.” (For Charge Sheet, Original Documents, and Medical Reports) (Legal Analysis of RTI Appeal) | This denial is an indirect refusal and violation of the RTI Act. The documents were generated and are on record with the Police Station (Public Authority). | The denial is not legally tenable. The police, while investigating, creates and holds records. The act of forwarding the original documents to the Court does not transfer the liability of providing a copy. The police station (as a Public Authority) remains responsible, not the Court. The police retain copies of the Charge Sheet, FIR, medical reports, and case diary entries. The applicant is seeking a copy of the record held by the police. They are not requesting the original document from the Court’s file. The PIO must provide the certified copy available in the police records. Supporting Legal Principle: The definition of “information” under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act includes “any material in any form.” This comprises records, documents held by or under the control of any public authority. Since the police generated and hold copies of these records, they must be supplied. |
2. ❓ Point 4: Denial Regarding Grievance Redressal Limit
| PIO’s Denial/Statement | Applicant’s Argument | Legal Comment & Support |
| “The charge sheet has been sent to the Hon’ble Court… there is no time limit fixed for this.” | The PIO answered a completely irrelevant question. The time limit for the charge sheet was addressed. This was not the actual query, which was about the limit on grievance submissions to SSP. | This amounts to non-supply of information due to misapplication of mind. The PIO’s response does not address the substantive query. If the information requested (limit on grievances) is available in any law, rule, or administrative instruction. The PIO must provide it under the RTI Act 2005. They must state if no such limit exists in these documents. If the information is not held, the PIO should clearly state so under Section 2(f). The current reply is evasive. Supporting Legal Principle: Section 7(1) requires the PIO to provide the information or reject the request within 30 days. Giving an irrelevant answer shows the PIO failed to comply with their duty. This warrants a penalty under Section 20 of the Act. |
3. 🔎 Point 5: Denial Regarding Specific Police Action on Injury
| PIO’s Denial/Statement | Applicant’s Argument | Legal Comment & Support |
| “Relevant information is attached to the case diary.” (Legal Analysis of RTI Appeal) | The reply is vague and insufficient. The PIO must provide the specific details of the action and conclusion reached, not just refer to the case diary. | This denial is incomplete and lacks transparency. The applicant sought the specific finding or conclusion recorded by the police regarding the thumb fracture. Simply referencing the case diary is a failure to supply the requested information. It does not provide the relevant extract regarding the specific action taken or conclusion reached on that piece of evidence. The PIO is obligated to disclose the final decision/finding recorded. Supporting Legal Principle: If a part of the record is exempt (e.g., ongoing tactical investigation details). Section 10(1) (Severability) mandates the PIO to provide access to the remaining part that is not exempt. The specific police finding on the injury is likely a conclusion on the record. It must be severed and supplied. This should be done unless a specific exemption under Section 8 (which is unlikely here) applies. The PIO must provide the specific factual finding or conclusion, not just a pointer to the entire diary. |
🏛️ Overall Legal Imperative (Legal Analysis of RTI Appeal)
The overall legal imperative for the First Appellate Authority (FAA) to rule in favor of the appellant rests on two key principles:
- Presumption of Disclosure: The RTI Act operates on the presumption. According to it, public authorities must share all information they hold. They must disclose such information. This principle emphasises transparency and accountability in government operations. It ensures that citizens have the right to access information. This belief comes from the principle that public authorities should share all information they hold. Exceptions occur only when specific information falls under one of the exemptions in Section 8. An exception can also occur if covered by Section 9. The PIO did not cite any of these exemption sections for points 1, 2, 3, and 5. Therefore, the information must be provided.
- Duty to Assist: The PIO’s role is not merely clerical. Various Information Commission orders emphasize they must clearly provide the requested information. Providing irrelevant or evasive answers is a violation of this duty.
The FAA, under Section 19(1), has the authority to examine whether the PIO’s decision was justified. It can direct the PIO to provide the information within a specified period.
Based on the information available, here are the key contact details for the Superintendent of Police (SSP) Office, Mirzapur, which is the Public Authority handling your RTI matter and First Appeal:
📞 Key Contact Details: SSP Office Mirzapur (Legal Analysis of RTI Appeal)
The contacts provided in the RTI and Appeal documents and public records typically correspond to the official channel. This channel is for the Superintendent of Police.
| Detail | Name/Designation | Contact Information | Relevance to your case |
| First Appellate Authority (FAA) | Somen Verma (Superintendent of Police) | 9454400299 | Authority to whom your First Appeal (SPMZR/A/2025/60056) is addressed. |
| Official Email (SSP Office) | Superintendent of Police | spmzr-up@nic.in | Official email ID for the SSP Mirzapur. |
| PIO (Office Ref.) | Public Information Officer, SP Mirzapur | 9454401105 | General office number for the PIO/SP Mirzapur office reference. |
| ASP Operation (PIO/Nodal) | Manish Kumar Mishra / Om Prakash Singh | aspopmzp@gmail.com or addlspopmzr@gmail.com | Email ID(s) used for the PIO/Nodal Officer designated for RTI processing. |
🌐 Web Link (Legal Analysis of RTI Appeal)
The official police website for contact details in Uttar Pradesh is:
- Official UP Police Website:
www.uppolice.gov.in
You can usually find specific details for Mirzapur in the directory section of this main state portal.
Based on the information available, here are the key contact details for the Superintendent of Police (SSP) Office, Mirzapur, which is the Public Authority handling your RTI matter and First Appeal:
📞 Key Contact Details: SSP Office Mirzapur
The contacts provided in the RTI and Appeal documents and public records typically correspond to the official channel. The Superintendent of Police is the official channel.
| Detail | Name/Designation | Contact Information | Relevance to your case |
| First Appellate Authority (FAA) | Somen Verma (Superintendent of Police) | 9454400299 | Authority to whom your First Appeal (SPMZR/A/2025/60056) is addressed. |
| Official Email (SSP Office) | Superintendent of Police | spmzr-up@nic.in | Official email ID for the SSP Mirzapur. |
| PIO (Office Ref.) | Public Information Officer, SP Mirzapur | 9454401105 | General office number for the PIO/SP Mirzapur office reference. |
| ASP Operation (PIO/Nodal) | Manish Kumar Mishra / Om Prakash Singh | aspopmzp@gmail.com or addlspopmzr@gmail.com | Email ID(s) used for the PIO/Nodal Officer designated for RTI processing. |
🌐 Web Link
The official police website for contact details in Uttar Pradesh is:
- Official UP Police Website:
www.uppolice.gov.in
Facing a similar challenge? Share the details in the box below, and our team of experts will do their best to help.