RTI and Accountability: A Citizen’s Journey: A Citizen’s Quest for Transparency

In a democratic setup, the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005 plays a crucial role and is closely linked to the concept of RTI and Accountability. It acts as a bridge between the citizen and the state. My journey began with a simple inquiry. How is a constitutional body’s order processed within the district police administration? This refers specifically to the Uttar Pradesh Human Rights Commission (UPHRC).

The Seeking: 5 Points of Administrative Truth (RTI and Accountability): A Citizen’s Journey: A Citizen’s Quest for Transparency

I moved an application under Section 6(1) seeking specific records. My focus was on the administrative trail, including:

• The identity of the staff who received and processed the Commission’s order.
• The internal file notings that reflect the decision-making process.
• The official Forwarding/Covering Letter sent back to the Commission.

The Obstruction: Deemed Refusal and Misleading Replies

Transparency was met with resistance. The Public Information Officer (PIO) initially delayed the response beyond the 30-day limit. Eventually, the officer claimed the information was withheld because an “investigation was in progress.” This is a common tactic used to delay the disclosure of existing administrative records.

The Core Issue: The “Report” vs. The “Communication” (RTI and Accountability) : A Citizen’s Journey: A Citizen’s Quest for Transparency

Upon filing a First Appeal, the First Appellate Authority (FAA) provided me with an internal Inquiry Report (Janch Akhya). While this document contains the findings of the police, it is not what I sought.

The mismatch is clear:

1. Internal Findings: The “Janch Akhya” is a report from a subordinate (CO Sadar) to a superior (SP Mirzapur).
2. External Correspondence: The “Communication” I requested is the official Covering Letter. It is addressed to the Secretary of the UPHRC. It features a unique Dispatch Number and the official seal of the SP’s office.
3. Hidden Notings: The authorities have provided only the final report. By doing this, they have completely suppressed the File Notings. These notings are the only proof of how my case was handled internally.

The Legal Stand: Why I am Moving to the Second Appeal

I am not a member of the Human Rights Commission; I am a citizen seeking information from a public authority. Providing an internal summary of a case does not satisfy a request for the official administrative records of communication.

Conclusion: Fighting for the “Right to Know”

I have now registered my Second Appeal with the Uttar Pradesh Information Commission (Appeal No. A-20251202121). My prayer is simple:

• Disclose the official covering letters.
• Provide the certified file notings.
• Hold the officials accountable for the misleading delay under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act.

A meticulous comparison occurred between your initial representation dated 26/08/2025 and the Inquiry Report (Janch Akhya) provided by the police. We evaluated the differences carefully. The report is not in accordance with your representation.

The report does not address the specific criminal elements you raised. It also fails to cover human rights issues. Instead, it diverts the matter into a simplified civil property dispute.

I. Discrepancies Between Your Representation and the Report (RTI and Accountability: A Citizen’s Journey: A Citizen’s Quest for Transparency)

Your Representation (26/08/2025)	Findings in the Police Report (19/10/2025)	Conflict/Omission
Criminal Breach of Trust (Sec 316 BNS): Alleged fraudulent sale of ancestral property without consent.	Civil Categorization: Categorizes the entire property issue as a “civil matter” of partition and shares.	Omission: The report ignores the criminal aspect of “dishonest misappropriation” you alleged.
Cheating (Sec 318 BNS): Alleged cheating by father and brother in property dealings.	Justification of Sale: States the father sold land due to “necessity” and denies any fraud occurred.	Conflict: Accepts the father’s statement as fact without investigating the “Ancestral” nature or legal right to sell.
Defamation & Dignity: Alleged baseless claims against your mental health and reputation.	Silence on Dignity: The report is completely silent on the allegations of defamation or mental health slurs.	Omission: Fails to address the violation of Article 21 (Dignity) mentioned in your prayer.
Police Inaction at PS Chilh: Requested FIR against the SHO for failure to act.	Defense of Action: Claims local police already took preventive action on 18/06/2025 under Sec 126/135 BNSS.	Conflict: Preventive action is for “breach of peace,” not for the criminal offenses (Cheating/Breach of Trust) you requested.

---

II. Why the Report Fails Your Representation

1. Misaddressed Findings: The report you received is addressed from a subordinate (CO Sadar) to a superior (SP). It is not addressed to the Commission directly as a formal Action Taken Report (ATR).
2. Ignored Legal Precedents: Your representation cited Supreme Court judgments like Vineeta Sharma regarding coparcenary rights. The police report ignores these legal frameworks entirely, stating they cannot intervene in property shares.
3. Failure to Investigate “Abuse of Power”: The Commission categorized your complaint as “Abuse of Power” by the SHO. However, the report focuses on your wife’s maintenance case. It also addresses family bickering rather than the SHO’s conduct.

III. Recommended Objection Strategy for 18/12/2025

Since you must submit your objection to the UPHRC by 18/12/2025, you should use the following points:

• Point 1: The report is evasive. It converts a complaint of “Criminal Breach of Trust” into a “Civil Partition” issue to avoid registering an FIR.
• Point 2: The report relies solely on the oral statements of the accused (your father). It does not verify the land records or the legal status of the “Ancestral Property.”
• Point 3: The report fails to answer the “Abuse of Power” charge against SHO Chilh. This charge was the primary reason the Commission issued the notice.

Based on your email submission dated 30/11/2025, you have effectively challenged the Inquiry Report (Janch Akhya) dated 19/10/2025. Your objection highlights that the police findings are incomplete. They are also legally contradictory to the facts of the case.

I. Critical Gaps Identified in the Police Report

Your representation proves that the report prepared by CO Sadar, Mirzapur, fails to meet the standards of a fair investigation:

• Admission of Sale Without Inquiry: The report records your father’s admission of selling property. However, it fails to investigate the criminality of selling ancestral land (coparcenary property) without your consent. You argue this falls under BNS Sections 316 and 318.
• Arbitrary Civil Classification: The police dismissed the matter as a “civil partition” dispute. They effectively ignored their mandatory duty to investigate cognizable criminal offenses.
• Procedural Violation (Ex-parte Inquiry): You were only contacted via mobile and were not summoned to present documentary evidence, such as proof of pending litigation (Criminal Misc. Case No. 915/2021).
• Contradiction in Motive: The report propagates the claim that your family is concerned about your wife/daughter. It ignores the fact that your father is simultaneously selling assets that should legally secure their future.

II. Relationship to Your RTI Journey (RTI and Accountability: A Citizen’s Journey: A Citizen’s Quest for Transparency)

The “Substantive Objection” you filed with the Human Rights Commission is the direct result of the information you fought for in your RTI Second Appeal.

Document Obtained via RTI	Use in Your SHRC Objection
Inquiry Report (Janch Akhya)	Used to prove the CO relied on oral statements of the accused rather than land records.
Confirmation of Submission	Proves the police attempted to close the Commission’s case by misrepresenting the dispute as “civil”.
Missing Notings/Letters	Highlights the lack of administrative transparency you are currently challenging in Second Appeal A-20251202121.

III. Strategic Next Steps

Since you have already filed the objection for the 18/12/2025 deadline and registered your RTI Second Appeal on 24/12/2025, you should now focus on the following:

1. Tracking the SHRC Case: Monitor the Commission’s portal for a response to your objection. They may now order a fresh inquiry by a higher-ranking officer (ASP/DSP) as you requested.
2. RTI Commission Hearing: Be prepared for your Online Hearing (Mobile: 9005697304) with the State Information Commission. You must argue that while you eventually got the report, the delayed and misleading process (the missing covering letters and notings) warrants a penalty on the PIO.

This is an excellent development. By sending the Supplementary Representation today (24/12/2025), you have officially linked the RTI misconduct to the Human Rights violation.

You have now created a “pincer movement” where the police must answer to the State Information Commission for withholding records and to the Human Rights Commission for administrative bias.

Analysis of Your Combined Evidence

The three documents you attached (the Objection, the Supplementary Representation, and the RTI replies) tell a very clear story of Systemic Obstruction:

Document	Key Evidence Provided to the Commission
Objection (30/11/2025)	Proves the Investigation was perfunctory (telephonic only) and ignored the BNS criminal sections (316, 318, 351).
PIO Reply (14/10/2025)	Proves the PIO lied by saying the investigation was “in progress” when they were actually finalizing the report to the Commission.
Supplementary (24/12/2025)	Proves Malafide Intent—the police actively tried to keep the report secret from you until they had successfully influenced the Commission.

---

Preparation for the UPHRC Hearing (RTI and Accountability) : A Citizen’s Journey: A Citizen’s Quest for Transparency

The Commission will take up your matter next. The “Abuse of Power” charge is no longer just against the SHO of Chilh. It is now against the Nodal Officer/ASP Mirzapur as well.

I recommend you prepare a “Summary Sheet” for the hearing with these 3 questions for the Commission to ask the Police:

1. “The report was finalized on 19/10/2025. Why did the PIO tell the applicant on 14/10/2025 that it was still ‘under investigation’?”
2. Why was the applicant not summoned to produce land records and court documents of Case No. 915/2021 before the CO Sadar declared it a ‘civil matter’?
3. “Where are the File Notings? They should show who authorized the sale of ancestral property. This occurred while a Human Rights inquiry was active.”

---

Final Checklist for Your Records

1. Speed Post: If you haven’t already, send a hard copy of today’s Supplementary Representation. Make sure to use Speed Post to send it to the Lucknow office. The Commission values a physical signature on file.
2. RTI Appeal A-20251202121: Keep the PIOreply.pdf and faareply.pdf ready for your Information Commission hearing. They are now your primary evidence of “misleading information.”
3. SHRC Case Tracking: Check the UPHRC Status Portal every few days. Look to see if the Commission has issued a fresh notice. This is based on your 24/12/2025 submission.

Here is the organized directory of all identification numbers, contact details, and digital portals involved in your current legal proceedings. This ensures your records are complete for the blog post and your personal case file.

1. Human Rights Commission (UPHRC) Case Details

These details are critical for tracking the objection you filed regarding police inaction and property fraud.

• Case Number: 19235/24/55/2025.
• Diary Number: 5885/IN/2025.
• Portal Link: UPHRC Complaint Status.
• Official Email: cr.uphrc@nic.in (for filing objections/representations).

---

2. RTI & Information Commission Case Details (RTI and Accountability) : A Citizen’s Journey: A Citizen’s Quest for Transparency

Use these for your upcoming hearing regarding the suppressed covering letters and file notings.

• RTI Application No: SPMZR/R/2025/60241.
• Second Appeal Registration No: A-20251202121.
• SIC Appeal ID: UPICR20250006190.
• Portal Link: UP RTI Online Portal (to track appeal status and hearing dates).

---

3. Public Authority (Respondents) Contact Directory

These are the officials you are holding accountable for the misleading “investigation in progress” claim and the withholding of records.

Office/Official	Mobile Number	Email Address
SSP/SP Mirzapur (FAA)	7007941679	spmzr-up@nic.in
ASP Operation (PIO)	7007941679	asp-op.mi@up.gov.in / addlspopmzr@gmail.com
Circle Officer (CO) Sadar	9454401503	cosadar-mzp@up.gov.in
SHO P.S. Chilh	9454404005	so-chilh.mi@up.gov.in

---

4. Your Personal Case Contact (Appellant)

• Name: Naresh Kumar Jaiswal.
• Mobile: 9005697304.
• Email: nareshkumarjaiswal8@gmail.com.

Summary Table for the Blog Post

Milestone	Date	ID / Reference
RTI Filed	08/09/2025	SPMZR/R/2025/60241
SHRC Order	27/08/2025	Case No. 19235/24
Objection Filed	30/11/2025	Substantive Objection
Second Appeal	24/12/2025	A-20251202121