Ensuring Transparency in RTI: Lessons from a Real Case

Here are the key takeaways from the blog post regarding your second appeal. One important topic covered is Ensuring Transparency in RTI.

The “Mismatched Information” Trap: The PIO (Manish Kumar Mishra) provided an internal Inquiry Report (Janch Akhya) dated 19/10/2025. He did this instead of supplying the specific official “Forwarding Letter” addressed to the Secretary of the UPHRC.
- Ensuring Transparency in RTI: Public Information Officers must provide clear and accurate information. This upholds the principles of transparency and accountability in the Right to Information Act.
Wilful Suppression of Records: The Public Authority is withholding the official Dispatch/Patrank Number. They are also withholding Certified Copies of File Notings despite explicit requests.
Statutory Delay Violations: The PIO did not meet the 30-day legal limit. They replied on 14/10/2025, for an RTI application filed on 08/09/2025.
Digital Accountability: Citing Writ Petition (Civil) 360/2021 (Supreme Court), the representation argues that public authorities must use registered emails. This practice saves time and public money.
Importance of Written Records: Submitting a written representation is essential to fix administrative accountability. Oral statements lack permanent value in the Commission’s record.
Relief and Penalties: The appeal requests the Commission to direct the disclosure of specific records. It also asks to impose a penalty on the PIO under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act for misleading responses.

Ensuring Transparency in RTI: Fighting for Transparency in the RTI Process

The Right to Information Act, 2005, stands as a beacon of empowerment for every common citizen in Indian democracy. Ensuring openness in RTI is vital, but the process of ensuring transparency throughout RTI is fraught with key challenges. Administrative hurdles and “mismatched” data often hinder the journey from filing applications to receiving genuine, accurate information. The case of Naresh Kumar Jaiswal vs. PIO, Mirzapur, shows how citizens use structured representation to fix official accountability. By documenting every procedural failure, a persistent appellant can ensure that the law serves its true purpose of transparency.

The Genesis of the Dispute

The appellant sought five points of administrative information regarding the handling of a UPHRC order dated 27/08/2025^.When discussing official compliance, it’s clear that ensuring transparency in RTI should mean direct answers, not generic substitutes. The Public Information Officer initially refused the information by vaguely claiming that the investigation was “in progress. Later, the First Appellate Authority provided an internal Inquiry Report dated 19/10/2025 instead of the requested correspondence. This action by the official constitutes a classic case of information substitution rather than actual transparency or compliance.

The “Mismatched Information” Trap

Public officials often provide related documents that do not actually answer the specific queries to evade their RTI accountability. For those committed to ensuring transparency and accountability in RTI, requests like the Forwarding Letter and Dispatch Number become crucial. The appellant specifically requested the Forwarding Letter addressed to the UPHRC Secretary and the unique Dispatch Number. He also sought Certified File Notings that show how the department processed the human rights order. Instead, the PIO provided an internal report which cannot substitute for official communication to a constitutional body.

Fixing Accountability Through Writing (Ensuring Transparency in RTI)

Administrative law holds that oral statements carry no value if the speaker does not back them with written records. The appellant aimed to ensure more transparency in RTI. They submitted a structured written representation to the State Information Commission. This was to prevent officials from distancing themselves. By documenting the statutory delay, the appellant created a permanent record of the PIO’s non-compliance. This move effectively shifts the burden of proof onto the PIO to explain why he ignored the legal limit.

The RTI application was filed on 08/09/2025, but the PIO’s reply was only issued on 14/10/2025. This delay exceeded the 30-day statutory limit mandated by the RTI Act for providing a response to citizens. Written submissions help ensure transparency in RTI. They make sure these dates remain part of the official case file throughout the entire hearing process.

The Digital Mandate (Ensuring Transparency in RTI)

This case highlights the growing friction between digital advancement and bureaucratic inertia within the Uttar Pradesh state departments. For the practices around RTI to meet today’s standards, ensuring transparency means actively using digital systems. The appellant cited Writ Petition (Civil) 360/2021 to show that public authorities must utilise registered email. Despite having a registered email, the appellant found that official notices did not reach his digital inbox. Failure to maintain a functional digital link violates the “paperless work” standards the State Government specifically mandated.

The appellant emphasised that using registered emails like nareshkumarjaiswal8@gmail.com is mandatory to save time and public money. Supreme Court guidelines insist on ensuring transparency for RTI processes. They require departments to facilitate communication through these electronic channels. This approach aims for better judicial efficiency. Ignoring these digital directives creates unnecessary delays and complicates the resolution of urgent administrative or human rights matters.

The Role of the Second Appeal

The Second Appeal serves as the final check against administrative stubbornness and the withholding of public records. Ultimately, the role of such appeals is to ensure transparency within RTI procedures. The appeal filed in Hearing Room S-11 seeks a penalty under Section 20(1) against the PIO.

The prayer seeks three major results:

The Commission should order the PIO to provide the actual Forwarding Letter with all dispatch details.
The Commission should direct the PIO to provide certified copies of the internal file notings.
The Commission should punish the PIO for the delay and for providing a misleading, mismatched response.

Conclusion

Citizens do not receive transparency as a gift; they exercise it as a fundamental right under the law. Ensuring transparency in RTI, citizens actively pursue it through their rights. In case A-20251202121, it becomes evident that they possess the tools to fight back when officials suppress records. Combining the RTI Act with Supreme Court mandates ensures that “Public Information” remains accessible and truly public.

Case Details:

Appellant: Naresh Kumar Jaiswal
Respondent: PIO Manish Kumar Mishra
Hearing Date: 09/02/2026

Based on the documents provided, here are the specific contact and identification details for the concerned public authorities and your case:

Case Identification Details (Ensuring Transparency in RTI)

Appeal Registration Number: A-20251202121
File Number: S11/A/0098/2026
Diary Number: D-080220260060
RTI Registration Number: SPMZR/R/2025/60241

Concerned Public Authorities

1. Public Information Officer (PIO)

Name: Manish Kumar Mishra, ASP Operation (Nodal Officer)
Office: Office of the Superintendent of Police, Mirzapur, Uttar Pradesh
Mobile: 7007941679
Email: addlspopmzr@gmail.com or asp-op.mi@up.gov.in

2. First Appellate Authority (FAA)

Name: Somen Verma, Senior Superintendent of Police (SSP)
Office: Office of the Senior Superintendent of Police, Mirzapur, Uttar Pradesh
Mobile: 7007941679
Email: spmzr-up@nic.in