This blog post explores why the 2015 MHA Advisory on mandatory FIR registration remains a “ghost” document in Mirzapur.

Here are the key takeaways from the structured blog post regarding the 2015 MHA Advisory and the administrative challenges in Mirzapur:

1. Systematic Failure of Mandatory FIR Registration

• The 2015 MHA Advisory mandated that police must register FIRs for all cognizable offenses under Section 154(1) of the CrPC.
• It specifically introduced the “Zero FIR” concept, allowing victims to file a report regardless of where the crime occurred.
• The mandate required strict penalties and prosecution for officers who refused to comply.

2. The “Missing Record” Defense (2015 MHA Advisory)

• The Senior Superintendent of Police (SSP) in Mirzapur officially stated that the 2015 advisory is not found in their records.
• Because the office claims it never received the document, it was never circulated to local police stations or outposts.
• Authorities used this “missing record” status to deny the names and designations of the staff responsible for processing such mandates.

3. The Administrative “Forwarding Loop” (2015 MHA Advisory)

• When challenged, the Chief Secretary’s office transferred the RTI through a chain: Home Department $rightarrow$ DGP Office $rightarrow$ SSP Mirzapur.
• This loop returned the inquiry to the very office that originally denied the information, effectively shielding higher officials from accountability.
• The RTI portal’s technical structure blocked the applicant’s path. This action prevented a second appeal after these transfers.

4. Legal Transition to BNSS (2015 MHA Advisory)

• On July 1, 2024, the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) replaced the CrPC. This change made previous references to Section 154(1) technically obsolete in current law.
• While the 2015 advisory was an administrative instruction, the BNSS has now formally codified the “Zero FIR” requirement.

5. Final Escalation to the Supreme Court (2015 MHA Advisory)

• Due to the “mute spectator” behavior of state authorities, a new RTI (Dy. No. 4517/RTI/25-26/SCI) was filed with the Supreme Court of India.
• The goal of this filing is to verify. We need to check if the State of Uttar Pradesh ever submitted the mandatory compliance reports. These reports are required by the Lalita Kumari judgment.

FIR Registration Advisory: Why the 2015 MHA Advisory on Mandatory FIRs Remains a “Ghost” in Mirzapur

The Right to Information (RTI) serves as a vital tool for citizens to challenge administrative silence. In Mirzapur, recent RTI activity has drawn new attention to the elusive 2015 Advisory issued by the MHA. Recent filings in Mirzapur regarding the 2015 Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) Advisory reveal a deep systemic failure. Authorities display either a total breakdown in communication or a deliberate attempt to evade mandatory legal accountability.

The 2015 Mandate: Ending Police Discretion

In 2015, the MHA issued a critical advisory to all State Governments and Union Territory Administrations. This advisory is important to remember. It fundamentally changed police obligations across jurisdictions. This document instructed officials to ensure that police stations never turn away victims of crime. The advisory established clear, mandatory rules for law enforcement across the country:

• Officers must register FIRs under Section 154(1) of the CrPC for all cognisable offences.
• Police must register an FIR regardless of territorial jurisdiction through the “Zero FIR” process.
• Failure to comply requires the prosecution of negligent officers under Section 166A of the IPC.
• This mandate sought to become a permanent part of every police officer’s institutional training.

The RTI Revelation: Missing Records and Evasion

A citizen filed an RTI application to verify the compliance status of this federal mandate in Mirzapur. In response to the request, the office claimed they did not have a copy of the 2015 MHA Advisory. The Public Information Officer (PIO) provided a baffling and evasive response to the applicant. The PIO explicitly claimed the office did not possess this vital legal document in its current records.

“If a ten-year-old federal advisory hasn’t reached the SP’s desk, it represents massive administrative negligence”.

The PIO stated that they could not identify the recipient staff because they “did not find” the advisory. This lack of record-keeping effectively shields individual officers from personal accountability and protects them from responsibility for their past failures. Without documentation concerning the 2015 MHA Advisory, officials cannot properly review procedures.

The Core of the Appeal: Who is Responsible?

The First Appeal (SPMZR/A/2025/60020) challenges this denial on two primary and urgent grounds. A central issue is determining who should have distributed the 2015 MHA Advisory and made it accessible in Mirzapur. First, the Office of the Chief Secretary failed to circulate a critical federal mandate for women’s safety. This omission represents a massive breakdown in the institutional chain of command within Uttar Pradesh. Second, the PIO uses “missing records” as a shield to obstruct the public’s fundamental right to know.

Why This Matters for Mirzapur

When police disregard MHA advisories, they undermine the rule of law and the safety of the public. The absence of transparent enforcement of the 2015 MHA Advisory seriously affects the lives of Mirzapur residents. For the marginalised citizens of Mirzapur, this lack of transparency translates to immediate and real harm:

• Local officers frequently refuse to file FIRs for serious cognisable crimes.
• Police personnel may harass victims at local stations instead of providing necessary legal protection.
• Negligent officers evade accountability. They keep the “rules” of their duty officially hidden. This issue links in part to missing documentation from the 2015 MHA Advisory.

The “Transfer Trap”: Digital Sabotage

The bureaucracy employed a forwarding loop to bypass transparency and evade a direct response. As a result, they made no progress in locating the 2015 MHA Advisory. The Chief Secretary returned the RTI to the very office the applicant had challenged. This move created a “digital dead end” for the applicant on the state RTI portal. The technical architecture of the portal effectively blocked the applicant from filing a proper second appeal.

The Path to the Supreme Court

The applicant bypassed the state machinery by filing directly with the Supreme Court of India. This new filing seeks to determine if the state ever filed mandatory compliance reports referring to the 2015 MHA Advisory. A response from the Supreme Court carries weight that local district authorities cannot easily ignore. This final step aims to fix accountability for the “missing” 2015 federal mandate.

---

Based on the documents you provided, I have outlined the specific identification details for the public authorities involved. Your RTI appeals also include contact details for the individuals involved.

1. State Information Commission (Uttar Pradesh)

• Public Authority: Uttar Pradesh State Information Commission.
• Address: 7/7A, RTI Bhawan, Vibhuti Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh, PIN Code 226010.
• Concerned Official: Shakuntala Gautam, State Information Commissioner (Hearing Room S-9).

---

2. District Police Authorities (Mirzapur) (2015 MHA Advisory)

Designation	Name	Mobile / Phone	Email ID
Public Information Officer (PIO)	Om Prakash Singh (ASP Operation)	9454401105	asp-op.mi@up.gov.in
First Appellate Authority (FAA)	Somen Verma (Superintendent of Police)	9454400299	spmzr-up@nic.in
Representative at Commission	Sanjay Kumar (Sub-Inspector)	—	—

---

3. State-Level Public Authorities (Transferred Authorities) (2015 MHA Advisory)

These authorities were involved in the “forwarding loop” described in your appeal.

• Chief Secretary Office: (Referred to as the initial transfer point for the RTI).
• Home Department (UP): Registration Number: DHOME/R/2025/80048.
• Director General of Police (DGP) Office: Registration Number: DGPOF/R/2025/90004.

---

4. Supreme Court of India (Current Inquiry)

• Public Information Officer: Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Supreme Court of India.
• Address: Tilak Marg, New Delhi-110001.
• Official RTI Web Link: rti.sci.gov.in.

---

5. Relevant Application / Diary Identifiers (2015 MHA Advisory)

• Supreme Court Diary No: 4517/RTI/25-26/SCI (Status: Received/Registered).
• State RTI Registration No: SPMZR/R/2025/80005.
• First Appeal Registration No: SPMZR/A/2025/60020.
• Second Appeal Number (SIC): S09/A/1015/2025.
• SIC Registration Number: A-20250400289.

Would you like me to draft an email to the Home Secretary (spmzr-up@nic.in) formally attaching your new Supreme Court Diary Number to demand an internal review of the “missing” 2015 records?