The blog post and the official case records were reviewed. Here are the key takeaways regarding the legal battle between Yogi M.P. Singh and Mahatma Gandhi Kashi Vidyapith (MGKVP): This case is a significant example of the ongoing RTI Transparency Battle. It highlights the importance of transparency in university affairs.

1. Core Transparency Dispute (RTI Transparency Battle & MGKVP)

• The appellant, Yogi M.P. Singh, is seeking seven specific points of information regarding employee posting details, joining dates, and categories at MGKVP.
• The primary goal is to verify if the university is complying with state-mandated transfer policies designed to prevent corruption.

2. Statutory Violations by the University

• Deemed Refusal: The PIO responded on July 11, 2025, which was 29 days past the 30-day legal deadline.
• Cost Exemption: The appellant argues that there was a delay. Because of this delay, they contend that the information must be provided free of charge. This is under Section 7(6) of the RTI Act.
• Inadequate Disclosure: The university claimed the data was on their website. However, the appellant asserts that the specific details are missing. No direct links were provided.

3. Failure of the Appellate Process

• FAA Inaction: The First Appellate Authority (FAA) failed to adjudicate the first appeal within the mandatory 30 to 45-day timeframe.
• Contradictory Claims: During a Commission hearing, the university claimed the appeal was disposed of on September 27, 2025. However, the appellant contends he never received such a decision.

4. Current Demands and Hearing Status

• Paperless Communication: The appellant has officially requested that all future notices be sent exclusively to his registered email. This will ensure a transparent, digital record.
• Penalty Proceedings: The appellant wants the Commission to penalize the PIO for the initial delay. He also seeks penalties for providing misleading responses.
• Upcoming Hearing: A critical online hearing is scheduled for March 10, 2026, to resolve these objections.

Would you like me to help you prepare a checklist? You should have specific documents ready for the hearing tomorrow.

RTI Transparency Battle & MGKVP: Yogi M.P. Singh vs. MGKVP University

This blog post explores the ongoing legal struggle for transparency between appellant Yogi M.P. Singh and Mahatma Gandhi Kashi Vidyapith (MGKVP), Varanasi. At its core, this dispute highlights the RTI Transparency Battle involving MGKVP and the challenges faced therein. Currently, the Uttar Pradesh Information Commission is adjudicating this case to determine if the university suppressed public data.

---

Case Overview and Procedural History

The dispute began when the appellant filed an RTI application on May 13, 2025. During this transparency battle, it became clear how the issues with MGKVP are deeply connected. They significantly affect both administrative compliance and public trust. He sought administrative data to verify compliance with state transfer policies and to identify potential corruption within the university.

• Initial Filing: First, the appellant submitted the RTI on May 13, 2025, beginning the journey of RTI Transparency at MGKVP.
• Delayed Response: Subsequently, the Public Information Officer (PIO) responded on July 11, 2025.
• Statutory Breach: The PIO responded 29 days after the 30-day legal limit. The law treats this delay as a “deemed refusal.
• First Appeal: Consequently, the appellant filed a First Appeal on July 15, 2025, because the PIO provided an evasive reply.

---

Critical Points of Information Sought

The appellant requested seven specific categories of information regarding the university’s workforce. These requests further fuel the RTI driven transparency battle that surrounds MGKVP and its governance.

• Posting Details: Specifically, he requested the current assignments of various officers. He also asked for information about employees involved in the RTI Transparency process at MGKVP.
• Joining Dates: Additionally, he sought the exact dates that employees started their current roles.
• Employee Categories: He also required the classification of staff members within the university hierarchy.
• Policy Compliance: Finally, he requested data to verify if the university follows state-mandated transfer policies.

---

Core Legal Arguments and Objections

During the proceedings, the appellant raised several vital objections before the State Information Commissioner, Shakuntala Gautam^. This is a salient feature in the MGKVP RTI Transparency Battle.

1. The “Deemed Refusal” Doctrine

Since the PIO failed to respond within the 30-day window, Section 7(2) of the RTI Act applies. Therefore, under Section 7(6), the university must now provide all information free of cost^. This doctrine is central to the ongoing transparency conflict pitting MGKVP against RTI campaigners.

2. Failure of Proactive Disclosure

The PIO claimed that the university website already contained the information. However, the appellant contends that the specific data is missing. Furthermore, he argues the university is failing its duty of “proactive disclosure” under Section 4(1)(b)^. Such failures illustrate the significance of the RTI Transparency Battle that continues at MGKVP.

3. Misapplication of RTI Exemptions

The university attempted to deny information by claiming the request would “disproportionately divert resources”. In contrast, the appellant argues that providing employee lists is a fundamental administrative function. It does not paralyse university operations. This legal argument is part of the broader RTI Transparency Battle at MGKVP.

---

Recent Developments and the Path Forward (RTI Transparency Battle & MGKVP)

The Commission has scheduled a critical online hearing for March 10, 2026, between 12:30 PM and 02:00 PM. At this juncture, the RTI Transparency Battle and MGKVP will come under scrutiny yet again.

• Registered Communication: Recently, the appellant formally requested that the Commission send all future notices strictly to his registered email (yogimpsingh@gmail.com), a key step in the RTI Transparency struggle at MGKVP.
• Paperless Mandate: He emphasises this request to ensure a transparent, paperless record in line with Supreme Court guidelines.
• Demand for Penalties: Moreover, the appellant asks the Commission to initiate penalty proceedings against the PIO, Dr. Sunita Pandey, for the 29-day delay, again pointing to the importance of RTI Transparency and the MGKVP battle for openness.

Based on the documents provided, here are the specific identification and contact details for the public authorities and the appellant involved in this case:

Case Identification Details (RTI Transparency Battle & MGKVP)

• Appeal Number: S-09/A/1956/2025.
• Registration Number: A-20250901861.
• Notice Number: 202602S09N200168.
• RTI Application Number: MGKVV/R/2025/60038.
• First Appeal Number: MGKVV/A/2025/60029.

---

Contact Information for Public Authorities

Authority	Name/Title	Email Address	Mobile Number
State Information Commission	Shakuntala Gautam (SIC)	hearingcourts9.upic@up.gov.in	Not Provided
Public Information Officer (PIO)	Dr. Sunita Pandey (Registrar, MGKVP)	registrarmgkvp@gmail.com	9839501925
First Appellate Authority (FAA)	Prof. Anand K. Tyagi (Vice Chancellor, MGKVP)	Not Provided	Not Provided

---

Appellant Details (RTI Transparency Battle & MGKVP)

• Name: Yogi M.P. Singh.
• Email: yogimpsingh@gmail.com.
• Mobile Number: 7379105911.

---

Official Web Links (RTI Transparency Battle & MGKVP)

• Online Hearing Link: https://upsic.up.gov.in/cispu/onlinehearing/94e322.
• Commission Official Portal: https://upsic.up.gov.in/.
• RTI Online Portal (UP): rtionline.up.gov.in.

Would you like me to help you check if the university has updated these contact details? We can look on their official website.at