The RTI Battle for Accountability: Can a Lekhpal Investigate Senior Police Officers?
In a robust democracy, the Right to Information (RTI) Act 2005 is the citizen’s strongest tool against administrative opacity. However, what happens when the highest office in a state provides evasive answers instead of transparency? This is the story of an ongoing legal challenge regarding grievance redressal procedures in Uttar Pradesh.
1. The Core Issue: Procedural Anarchy?
The journey began with a grievance (Ref: GOVUP/E/2025/0096028) concerning alleged misconduct and disobedience of civil court orders by police personnel in Mirzapur. Surprisingly, the report on the Jansunwai Portal regarding this police matter was submitted by a Lekhpal (a junior revenue officer).
This raises a critical legal question: Under what authority can a revenue official adjudicate the conduct of senior police officers?
2. The RTI Inquiry: Seeking the “Rule Book”
To uncover the legality of this process, an RTI application (DOCMO/R/2025/61124) was filed with the Chief Minister’s Office seeking five specific points:
- Identification: Who processed and monitored the grievance?
- Authority: Where is the Government Order (GO) that allows a Lekhpal to handle police-related grievances?
- Accountability: What is the mechanism for taking action against corrupt staff within the CM office?
- Precedent: Has any disciplinary action been taken against CMO staff in the last year?
3. “Evasive Tactics” by the Public Information Officer (PIO)
Despite the specific nature of the query, the PIO provided a generic response, merely stating that the matter was forwarded to the Home Department. By doing so, the PIO ignored the request for administrative records and manuals, effectively treating a legal RTI request as a simple status update.
4. The Failure of the First Appellate Authority (FAA)
When the matter was escalated, the First Appellate Authority passed what is known as a “Proforma Order.” Instead of examining the merits of the case, the FAA claimed information had already been provided. This “copy-paste” style of justice undermines the quasi-judicial role that an FAA is supposed to play under Section 19(1) of the RTI Act.
5. Escalation to the State Information Commission (UPSIC)
With no satisfactory answer from the CMO, a Second Appeal (Registration No: A-20251202449) has now been filed with the Uttar Pradesh State Information Commission.
The appellant, Ashok Kumar Maurya, is seeking three primary reliefs:
- Certified Disclosure: Delivery of all 5 points of information.
- Penalties: Maximum penalty on the PIO under Section 20(1) for intentional concealment.
- Legal Clarity: A clear revelation of the guidelines that permit junior revenue staff to investigate the police department.
6. Why This Matters to You
This case isn’t just about one individual in Mirzapur; it is about the sanctity of the Jansunwai (IGRS) portal. If grievances are being “disposed of” by unauthorized officials providing arbitrary reports, the entire system of public grievance redressal is at risk.
Transparency is not a favor granted by the government; it is a right. The eyes of the public are now on the State Information Commission to see if they will hold the CMO accountable.
To understand why this case has reached the State Information Commission, it is essential to look at the gap between what was legally asked and what was administratively provided. The following breakdown “puts light” on the mismatch between the citizen’s right and the department’s response.
1. The Information Gap: A Comparative Analysis
The table below illustrates how the Public Information Officer (PIO) and First Appellate Authority (FAA) bypassed the specific queries.
| Point | Information Sought by Appellant | Information Provided by PIO/FAA | Status |
| 1 & 2 | Names & Designations of staff who processed and monitored the grievance. | Ignored. The PIO only stated the grievance was forwarded to the Home Department. | Denied |
| 3 | Manuals/Orders authorizing a Lekhpal to investigate Senior Police Officers. | Ignored. No specific Government Order (GO) or manual was cited or provided. | Denied |
| 4 | Disciplinary Mechanism for corrupt staff within the CM Office. | Not Addressed. The response remained silent on internal procedural rules. | Denied |
| 5 | Action Taken Report (ATR) on staff disciplined by the CM in the last year. | Not Addressed. No data or report was shared regarding past accountability. | Denied |
2. Analysis of the PIO’s Response
The PIO’s reply dated 17/10/2025 followed a “deflection strategy.” Instead of acting as an information provider, the PIO acted as a post office.
- The Flaw: Under the RTI Act, if the PIO does not hold the information, they must transfer the RTI under Section 6(3). Instead, the PIO simply gave a status update of a grievance, which is a different process altogether.
- The Result: The Appellant received a “process update” instead of “certified documents.”
3. Analysis of the FAA’s Order
The First Appellate Authority (Anjna Tripathi) had the legal duty to correct the PIO’s mistake. However, her order dated 03/12/2025 was a “Speaking Order” in name only.
- The Flaw: The FAA claimed that information was “already given” and directed the appellant to the Jansunwai Portal.
- The Legal Error: The Jansunwai Portal contains the outcome of a complaint (the report), whereas the RTI sought the authority (the laws/rules) behind that report. The FAA failed to distinguish between a service and a record.
4. The Core Conflict: The “Lekhpal” Question
The most critical part of this case is Point 3. In Uttar Pradesh, there is a growing concern that police complaints are being sent to Revenue officials (Lekhpals) for “disposal” to clear portal backlogs.
- Why this is hidden: If the CMO admits there is no such manual, the reports submitted by Lekhpals on police matters become legally void.
- The Concealment: By refusing to provide the manual, the CMO is effectively avoiding a confirmation that the current grievance redressal system might be operating outside of standard legal protocols.
5. Summary of the “Mockery” of RTI
The behavior of the PIO and FAA in this case constitutes a “Deemed Refusal.” By providing irrelevant information (grievance status) in place of relevant information (administrative records), they have created a hurdle that only the State Information Commission can now clear.
To ensure your records are complete and for public awareness, here is the structured list of all digital identifiers, contact points, and official links related to your case.
## 1. Key Application & Reference IDs
These IDs are essential for tracking your case across the different portals of the Uttar Pradesh Government.
- RTI Registration Number:
DOCMO/R/2025/61124 - First Appeal Number:
DOCMO/A/2025/60213 - Second Appeal Number:
A-20251202449 - UPSIC Registration Number:
UPICR20240009954 - Grievance Ref (The Root Cause):
GOVUP/E/2025/0096028
## 2. Contact Directory (Respondents)
This information is used to serve notices and ensure the responsible officers are held accountable by the Commission.
| Role | Name | Mobile Number | Email Address |
| PIO (Section Officer) | Vinod Sharma | 9454412736 | vsls32165@gmail.com |
| FAA (Under Secretary) | Anjna Tripathi | 9454411282 | anjna.11282@gov.in |
| Nodal Officer | Sanjay Chaturvedi | 9454410972 | sanjay.10972@gov.in |
## 3. Official Web Links
These portals are where you can check the live status of your applications and appeals.
- UP RTI Online (Filing/Status): rtionline.up.gov.in
- State Information Commission (UPSIC): upsic.up.gov.in
- Jansunwai/IGRS Portal (Grievance): jansunwai.up.nic.in
- UP Second Appeal Tracking (CATS): upsic.up.gov.in/online_appeal_status
## 4. The Hierarchy of Accountability
The diagram below shows the legal path your application has traveled, highlighting how each level failed to provide the sought information, leading to the current Second Appeal.
## Summary of the “Sought vs. Provided” Conflict
- Sought: Internal staff names, monitoring officer details, and the Manual/Order giving a Lekhpal authority over Police conduct.
- Provided: A simple statement that the complaint was “forwarded” and a direction to check the Jansunwai portal.
The core of your Second Appeal is that a portal status is not a certified document and it does not answer the question of legal authority (Point 3).
Would you like me to help you set up an automated calendar reminder for when you should expect the first hearing notice from the Commission?
Facing a similar challenge? Share the details in the box below, and our team of experts will do their best to help.