Here are the key takeaways from the blog post: (Kiran Singh vs. PIO)

1. Systemic Evasion of RTI: The case of Kiran Singh vs. PIO, Lucknow Police Commissionerate (RTI Appeal S05/A/0106/2025) demonstrates how a public authority, the police, allegedly uses bureaucratic tactics. These tactics evade providing information and accountability under the Right to Information (RTI) Act.
2. Inadequate and Misleading Responses: The State Information Commission officially labeled the police’s initial information as “incomplete.” It was also called “misleading” on September 11, 2025.
3. Jurisdictional Evasion (“Red Herring”): The police are accused of trying to misclassify the dispute as a “revenue concern.” This is to avoid answering specific questions about their actions. These questions include the basis for labeling a path as a “common road.” They also encompass the justification for the alleged detention of the appellant’s family.
4. Contempt of Commission Orders: The police department reportedly disregarded the Commission’s order to the SHO of Krishnanagar. They submitted a subsequent report on December 1, 2025, that ignored the instructions. The appellant calls this a “clear mockery of the law.”
5. Three Critical Unanswered Questions: The PIO failed to answer questions regarding:
   • The Legal Basis for classifying the path as a “common road.”
   • The Justification for Detention of the appellant’s family.
   • The alleged Influence of specific personnel (Kamla Dayal and Manoj Kumar Solanki) on the case.
6. Demand for Strict Penalties: The appellant presented her representation on February 11, 2026. She is seeking the rejection of the misleading report. She is also requesting a high-level internal inquiry. Furthermore, she demands penalties against the PIO. These penalties are under Section 20(1) and 20(2) of the RTI Act. The demand is due to willful withholding of facts.
7. Ongoing Struggle: The case highlights the “persistence needed to fight for transparency.” It remains pending “For further hearing” as of February 2026. The Commission’s decision on penalizing the non-compliance is awaited.

Kiran Singh vs. PIO: The Struggle for Transparency in RTI Appeal S05/A/0106/2025

The Right to Information (RTI) Act empowers citizens to hold those in power accountable. However, the case of Kiran Singh vs. PIO, Lucknow Police Commissionerate, reveals how bureaucracy can stifle transparency. In fact, this matter is currently pending before Hon’ble State Information Commissioner Shri Padum Narayan Dwivedi in Room S-5.

1. The Genesis: A Quest for Accountability (Kiran Singh vs. PIO)

Mrs. Kiran Singh filed an RTI seeking the legal basis for police actions and officer conduct. Initially, the police provided responses that the Commission later deemed inadequate. Consequently, on September 11, 2025, the Commission officially labeled the information as “incomplete and misleading”.Mrs. Kiran Singh filed an RTI seeking the legal basis for police actions and officer conduct. Initially, the police provided responses that the Commission later deemed inadequate. Consequently, on September 11, 2025, the Commission officially labeled the information as “incomplete and misleading”. Kiran Singh vs. PIO

2. The Core Issue: Jurisdictional Evasion

The police department consistently attempts to label this dispute as a “revenue concern.” By doing so, they avoid answering for their own actions.

• The Police Stance: Sub-Inspector Ashish Kumar claimed in his December 1, 2025, report. He stated that land area disputes are for the Revenue Department.
• The Appellant’s View: However, Kiran Singh argues that the police must explain their own investigative basis. Specifically, she demands to know why they labeled a path a “common road.”The police department consistently attempts to label this dispute as a “revenue concern.” By doing so, they avoid answering for their own actions.
• The Police Stance: Sub-Inspector Ashish Kumar claimed in his December 1, 2025, report. He stated that land area disputes are for the Revenue Department.

The Appellant’s View: However, Kiran Singh argues that the police must explain their own investigative basis. Kiran Singh vs. PIO Specifically, she demands to know why they labeled a path a “common road.”

3. Deliberate Contempt of Commission Orders

The police department’s behavior suggests a disregard for the Commission’s authority. Following the September ruling, the Commission ordered the SHO of Krishnanagar to provide accurate data. Instead, the police submitted a report on December 1, 2025, that ignored these instructions. Mrs. Singh describes this as a “clear mockery of the law.”The police department’s behavior suggests a disregard for the Commission’s authority. Following the September ruling, the Commission ordered the SHO of Krishnanagar to provide accurate data. Instead, the police submitted a report on December 1, 2025, that ignored these instructions. Mrs. Singh describes this as a “clear mockery of the law.” (Kiran Singh vs. PIO)

4. Unanswered Questions: The Three Pillars

The PIO has failed to answer three critical questions from the original RTI application:

A. Legal Basis for Classification (Q.1)

First, the police concluded that the path is a “common road.” Therefore, the appellant wants to see the investigative report that justifies this conclusion.

B. Justification for Detention (Q.2)

Second, the appellant alleges that the police confined her family members at the Krishnanagar Police Station. As a result, she seeks the legal provision that authorized this detention.

C. Personnel Influence (Q.3)

Third, Mrs. Singh requested posting details for Kamla Dayal and Manoj Kumar Solanki. Moreover, she believes these individuals are influencing the case through internal police connections.The PIO has failed to answer three critical questions from the original RTI application:A. Legal Basis for Classification (Q.1)

First, the police concluded that the path is a “common road.” Therefore, the appellant wants to see the investigative report that justifies this conclusion.B. Justification for Detention (Q.2)

Second, the appellant alleges that the police confined her family members at the Krishnanagar Police Station. As a result, she seeks the legal provision that authorized this detention.C. Personnel Influence (Q.3)

Third, Mrs. Singh requested posting details for Kamla Dayal and Manoj Kumar Solanki. Moreover, she believes these individuals are influencing the case through internal police connections. Kiran Singh vs. PIO

5. The “Red Herring” Defense

The police focus on the appellant’s lack of land documents to distract from the real issues. Sub-Inspector Ashish Kumar claimed he could not resolve the matter because the applicant provided no papers. However, RTI law requires the public authority to provide the information they hold, regardless of the applicant’s documents.The police focus on the appellant’s lack of land documents to distract from the real issues. Sub-Inspector Ashish Kumar claimed he could not resolve the matter because the applicant provided no papers. However, RTI law requires the public authority to provide the information they hold, regardless of the applicant’s documents. Kiran Singh vs. PIO

6. The Prayer for Action: Seeking Penalties

In her representation filed on February 11, 2026, Mrs. Singh moved for strict accountability. In addition, she included three specific prayers:

1. Rejection of Reports: She asks the Commission to reject the misleading report from December 1, 2025.
2. Internal Inquiry: She demands a high-level probe into the “high-handedness” at the Krishnanagar Police Station.
3. Section 20 Penalties: Finally, she requests penalties under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act. She also seeks penalties under Section 20(2) for willful withholding of facts. In her representation filed on February 11, 2026, Mrs. Singh moved for strict accountability. In addition, she included three specific prayers:

1. Rejection of Reports: She asks the Commission to reject the misleading report from December 1, 2025.
2. Internal Inquiry: She demands a high-level probe into the “high-handedness” at the Krishnanagar Police Station.

Section 20 Penalties: Finally, she requests penalties under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act. She also requests penalties under Section 20(2) for willful withholding of facts. Kiran Singh vs. PIO

Conclusion: The Road Ahead

The case of Kiran Singh highlights the persistence needed to fight for transparency. Currently, the matter remains “For further hearing” as of February 2026. The Commission must now decide whether to penalize this non-compliance or allow the evasion to continue.

Case Reference:

• Appellant: Kiran Singh
• PIO: Naveen Kumar Singh, ADC
• File No: S05/A/0106/2025
• Hearing Date: February 11, 2026Standing Against Systemic Evasion: The Struggle for Transparency in RTI Appeal S05/A/0106/2025

Here are the specific application identifiers, contact details, and web links extracted from the official documentation and portal updates for your case:

Case Identifiers

• Welcome ID: UPICR20250000775.
• Registration Number: A-20250200031.
• File Number: S05/A/0106/2025.
• Latest Diary Number: D-110220260048 (dated February 11, 2026).
• Previous Diary Numbers:
  • D-021220250096 (dated December 2, 2025).
  • D-270520250029 (dated May 27, 2025).

---

Mobile Numbers and Contacts (Kiran Singh vs. PIO)

• Appellant (Kiran Singh): 8687593247.
• Secondary Contact/Email Source: 9389752386 (referenced within the appellant’s email address).

---

Email Addresses of Public Authorities (Kiran Singh vs. PIO)

You have communicated with or referenced the following official email addresses:

• Commissioner of Police, Lucknow: cp-pol.lu@up.gov.in.
• Joint Commissioner of Police (L&O): jcp-pollo.lu@up.gov.in.
• Joint Commissioner of Police (HQ): jcp-polhq.lu@up.gov.in.
• Public Information Officer (PIO): jansuchanalko@gmail.com.
• DCP HQ Office: dcphqoffice@gmail.com.
• UP Information Commission (Court S-5): hearingcourts5.upic@up.gov.in.

---

Web Link and Portal Details

• Direct Gmail Thread Link: https://mail.google.com/mail/u/8/?ik=ba9ab7d319….
• Portal View: The screenshot confirms the status is currently “For further hearing” in Room S-5.

---

Public Information Officer (PIO) Profile (Kiran Singh vs. PIO)

• Name: Naveen Kumar Singh, ADC.
• Address: Office of the Commissioner of Police, Lucknow, PIN: 226001.