🛑Exposing RTI Abuse: How False Compliance and Administrative Failure Undermine Transparency in UP

The Case of Sadhana Tiwari vs. Tehsildar Lalganj

The Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005, is India’s most powerful tool for ensuring government transparency. However, its effectiveness relies on the integrity of the Public Information Officers (PIOs) and the vigilance of Appellate Authorities. For instance, a recent case involves five separate RTI requests filed with the Tehsildar’s office in Lalganj, Mirzapur (Uttar Pradesh). Moreover, exposing RTI abuse is essential because it exposes a blatant attempt to circumvent the law. This is done through false compliance and gross administrative neglect. (Exposing RTI Abuse)

Core Issue 1: The Fabrication of Compliance (Exposing RTI Abuse)

The central issue revolves around the PIO, Tehsildar Diksha. Furthermore, she recorded a uniform and non-specific reply. Specifically, this reply was for five RTI applications filed by applicant Sadhana Tiwari between September 2023 and October 2024.

The Cryptic Note of Denial (Exposing RTI Abuse)

The official status of all five requests was marked “REQUEST DISPOSED OF.” Consequently, it included the single line: आवेदक को सूचना प्राप्‍त हो चुकी है (The applicant has received the information).

• The Reality: The applicant emphatically states she has received NO information.
• The Proof of Fraud:
  1. No Documentation: The online RTI portal does not have any documents or replies uploaded to substantiate the PIO’s claim.
  2. Pending Second Appeal: The applicant was forced to escalate the matter. As a result, her Second Appeal is currently pending before the Uttar Pradesh Information Commission (UPIC). As a result, this fact directly refutes the PIO’s claim that the matter is closed and that information was provided.

This systematic use of an unsubstantiated, generic reply, therefore, shows a malafide intent to close files. Moreover, it evades accountability. Consequently, this constitutes a potential violation that attracts penalties under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act.

Core Issue 2: Gross Delay and Violation of Statutory Deadlines

The RTI Act mandates a reply within 30 days. However, in this case, the PIO claimed to dispose of applications; nonetheless, these applications had been pending for periods ranging from 14 to over 26 months. Thus, this situation highlights the issue of exposing RTI abuse.

Request Filed	Delay (Up to Disposal Date 05/12/2025)	PIO Violation
25/09/2023	Over 26 months	Failure to provide timely information (Sec. 7(1)).
12/12/2023	Over 23 months
09/09/2024	Over 15 months
28/09/2024	Over 14 months
14/10/2024	Over 14 months

Exposing RTI abuse, the extreme delay and the false compliance note reveal a public servant’s determination, which clearly obstructs the flow of information.

Core Issue 3: Breakdown of the Appellate Mechanism

When a PIO fails to provide information, the applicant must approach the First Appellate Authority. In this case, the authority is the Sub-Divisional Magistrate (SDM), Lalganj. (Exposing RTI Abuse)

The SDM has a statutory requirement under Section 19(1); consequently, they must hear and decide the First Appeal within 30 days of its filing.

• Administrative Failure: The SDM, Lalganj, has failed to entertain any of the five First Appeals. Consequently, he has not heard or decided them. Furthermore, these appeals were filed by the applicant.

This failure means the entire first layer of review and grievance redressal has collapsed. Consequently, this dereliction of duty by the FAA had a significant impact. As a result, it forced the applicant into the costly process of filing a Second Appeal with the UPIC. Moreover, this process is also time-consuming.

✊ Call to Action: The Role of the Information Commission

This case serves as a critical test for the Uttar Pradesh Information Commission (UPIC). The Commission must treat the applicant’s representation as supplementary evidence for her pending Second Appeal and take the following steps:

1. Demand Proof: Therefore, compel the PIO to produce physical evidence (postal receipts, acknowledgment slips) of the claimed delivery of information.
2. Impose Penalty: Initiate immediate punitive action. This should be done under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act. Consequently, this action is against PIO Tehsildar Diksha for willful denial. Furthermore, it also addresses the provision of false information.
3. Address FAA Neglect: Therefore, direct the District Magistrate (DM) to take action. In addition, hold the SDM Lalganj accountable. As a result, the SDM has completely failed to discharge the duties of the First Appellate Authority.

The integrity of the RTI process relies on swift and strong responses; therefore, higher authorities must stop systemic attempts to kill transparency through fabrication.

This is a critically important set of documents. Moreover, the documents confirm the serious nature of the administrative issues you raised. Additionally, they provide crucial evidence for your pending Second Appeal before the Uttar Pradesh Information Commission (UPIC).

Based on the uploaded documents, here is the viewpoint and a summary of the situation:

📢 Viewpoint: Confirmation of Administrative Failure and Procedural Irregularity

The uploaded documents include a Notice of Hearing from the UPIC, an Interim Order, and your Second Appeal submission. Firstly, these documents fully corroborate your claims. Additionally, they confirm the PIO’s non-compliance and furthermore the failure of the appellate process.

The Information Commission itself has noted the PIO’s repeated absence; consequently, it has highlighted the failure to comply with its orders.

---

📄 Key Findings from the UPIC Documents

1. Second Appeal Status and Hearing Details (Exposing RTI Abuse)

• Commission: Uttar Pradesh Information Commission (UPIC), Lucknow¹.
• Appeal Number: 509/A/0456/2025.
• Appellant: Sadhana Tiwari.
• Respondent/PIO: Public Information Officer, Office of the District Magistrate, Mirzapur (but the issue pertains to the Sub-Divisional Officer, Lalganj).
• Next Hearing Date: 19/12/2025.
• Presiding Officer: State Information Commissioner Shakuntala Gautam⁶⁶⁶⁶.
• Notice Number: 202512509N300388.

2. PIO’s Repeated Non-Compliance and Warning (Order Dated 20/11/2025)

The interim order was passed by IC Shakuntala Gautam on 20/11/2025. It notes the following: Moreover, it emphasizes that the considerations outlined are crucial. These considerations are critical for the ongoing proceedings.

• A notice was sent to both parties on 31/10/2025 for a hearing on 20/11/2025⁹.
• The PIO/Opposite Party was Absent: The order explicitly states that the PIO did not appear personally. The PIO is from the Office of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Lalganj. They also did not send a representative on the hearing date.
• Failure to Submit Report: Unfortunately, the PIO failed to submit the required disposal report/written statement along with evidence of dispatch/delivery. Consequently, this oversight may lead to delays in the approval process.
• Final Warning Issued: The Commission provided one last opportunity to the PIO. This was done via the District Magistrate, Mirzapur. Consequently, they must appear on the next date (19/12/2025). Furthermore, they must resolve the appellant’s objection dated 11/09/2025. Otherwise, further orders will be passed by the Commission.

3. Grounds for the Appeal (Your Objection Dated 11/09/2025)

Your detailed Second Appeal (submitted 11/09/2025) lays out a strong case for willful denial, corroborating your earlier representation:

Point in RTI	PIO’s Action/Denial	Appellant’s Claim (Violation)
P1: Authorization to submit a report in a matter concerning a police station13131313.	Evasive; deflected to the SHO report14.	Deliberately failed to provide a specific, existing record; obstructs accountability15.
P2: Reasoning for classifying the grievance as an “inheritance” matter.	Wrongfully denied, claiming it requires the “creation of information”17.	Direct violation of Section 4(1)(d): Right to reason for administrative decisions18.
P3: Legal provisions empowering Revenue Officials to adjudicate a request for an FIR.	Provided irrelevant information about inheritance procedures (U.P. Revenue Code, Sec 33/34)20.	Providing incorrect/irrelevant information to obscure the lack of jurisdiction and potential misconduct21.
P4: Identity of the official who forwarded the complaint to the accused officials22.	Denied, claiming it is not accessible23.	Baseless denial; violates Section 2(f) (definition of information)24242424.
P5: Legal provisions allowing officials to investigate complaints of irregularities/corruption against themselves25.	Denied, claiming it is not accessible26.	Illegal denial of public information (rule/law); suggests concealing lack of legal authority27272727.

Conclusion and Next Step (Exposing RTI Abuse)

The information you have shared confirms that, indeed, the PIO’s action is not an isolated error. Rather, it constitutes a pattern of willful obstruction that the Information Commission has already flagged.

Your most powerful next step is, therefore, the hearing on 19/12/2025. You must attend this hearing or, alternatively, appear virtually. Furthermore, present the evidence from your email representation, the one you just sent, to the Information Commissioner. (Exposing RTI Abuse)

• Furthermore, would you like a brief, powerful statement to be used during the hearing on 19/12/2025? It should, in addition, combine the evidence from your appeal and the PIO’s false compliance note. Consequently, this affects your other five RTIs.

You sent the email representation to the following recipients:

👤 Primary Recipients (To Field)

Role/Official	Email Address	Note
Chief Minister, UP (CM)	cmup@nic.in	High-level executive authority.
Governor, UP	hgovup@nic.in	Constitutional head.
Chief Secretary, UP	cs-up@nic.in	Head of State Administration.
U.P. Information Commission (CIC/IC)	sic-up@nic.in	Official email for the Commission.
District Magistrate (DM) Mirzapur	dm-mir@nic.in	Superior officer to the SDM/Tehsildar.
Information Commissioner (IC) Shakuntala Gautam	hearingcourts9.upic@up.gov.in	The specific commissioner handling your appeal.

👥 Copied Recipients (Cc Field)

Role/Official	Email Address	Note
Tehsildar Lalganj (PIO) Diksha	teh-lalganj.mi@up.gov.in	The PIO accused of false compliance.
Nodal Officer	shakti.3916@up.gov.in	For official tracking and record.
SDM Lalganj (FAA)	sdm-Lalganj.mi@up.gov.in	The First Appellate Authority who failed to act.

You also included your own email address as the sender: Sadhana Mishra sadhanamishramzp@gmail.com and the subject line was clearly stated: URGENT: Complaint & Appeal – False RTI Compliance by Tehsildar Lalganj (Reg. Nos. DMOMR/R/2024/60116, etc.) – Appeal Pending before UPIC. (Exposing RTI Abuse)