Here are the key takeaways from the blog post regarding the RTI battle and the ₹50 Crore PAN misuse scam. This case highlights the importance of Transparency in High-Value Financial Scams for ensuring accountability and public trust.

1. The Core Fraud and Victimization

• The case involves FIR No. 291/2023 from Mirzapur, regarding the misuse of a citizen’s PAN by over 200 corporate entities.
• The fraud is estimated to be approximately ₹50 Crore (₹500 million).
• The appellant, Yogi M. P. Singh, is being held potentially liable by the Income Tax Department for transactions he did not authorize.

2. Systematic RTI Obstruction (Transparency in High-Value Financial Scams)

• The RTI application was initially filed on November 25, 2025. It faced a “Deemed Refusal” because no response was provided within the mandatory 30-day period.
• The DGP Headquarters transferred the matter to Cyber Crime HQ. Cyber Crime HQ subsequently claimed the information was “Not Related to Cyber Crime”. This claim was made despite the FIR involving Sections 66C and 66D of the IT Act.
• The Public Information Officer (PIO) failed to transfer the request to the appropriate department. This should have been done under Section 6(3) if they truly believed they were not the custodians of the information.

3. Failure of Supervisory Oversight

• The PIO provided only the “minimum legal rank” for investigation officers (Inspector). The appellant argues that scams of this magnitude require mandatory monitoring by Gazetted Officers (DSP/SP rank).
• The PIO refused to disclose the identity of the Supervisory and Monitoring officers. These officers were responsible for overseeing the ₹50 Crore state-level scam.

4. Administrative Accountability (Transparency in High-Value Financial Scams)

• The DGP Headquarters issued a high-priority directive on February 21, 2026, ordering the Cyber Crime HQ to provide the information.
• The directive warned the Cyber Crime PIO about personal liability. This arises under Section 5(5) of the RTI Act. It is due to failing to comply with the disclosure mandates.
• The appellant is seeking a penalty of ₹250 per day on the PIO. The PIO provided misleading information. These actions caused persistent delays.

5. Lack of Technical Training

• A major point of contention is the training of police investigators in Income Tax Department terminology (TIS, TDS, and TCS). This training is crucial for effectively handling high-value economic cyber crimes.
• The refusal to provide training data suggests a lack of transparency. It is unclear how the state prepares officers to manage complex identity theft and tax fraud cases.

Accountability and Transparency in High-Value Financial Scams: The RTI Battle of 2026

The pursuit of justice in financial fraud cases often hinges on the transparency of the institutions tasked with investigating them. Transparency in high-value financial scams remains a pressing issue. A recent and ongoing legal battle before the Uttar Pradesh State Information Commission demonstrates this issue. It highlights the systemic friction. Citizens seek accountability, while bureaucratic maneuvers are used to withhold information. This case involves a suspected ₹500 million (₹50 Crore) scam. It serves as a critical case study on the efficacy of the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005. This is especially important in the face of alleged jurisdictional misdirection.

---

The Genesis of the Dispute: FIR 291/2023

The core issue traces back to FIR No. 291/2023 registered at Police Station Kotwali Katra, District Mirzapur. The complainant, Yogi M. P. Singh, reported a massive financial crime. It involved the misuse of his Permanent Account Number (PAN) by over 200 corporate entities. This led to suspected tax fraud reaching nearly ₹50 Crores. As the victim of identity theft, the appellant found himself potentially liable for transactions he never authorized. This situation prompted him to use the RTI Act. He aimed to scrutinize the police department’s investigation protocols. This highlighted the need for transparency in high-value financial scams.

The Initial RTI and the “Deemed Refusal” (Transparency in High-Value Financial Scams)

On November 25, 2025, an RTI application was filed with the DGP Office in Lucknow. The request sought specific data points, including:

• The minimum and typical designations of officers appointed as Investigation Officers (IOs) for scams exceeding ₹10 Crore.
• Verification of whether official police training includes modules on Income Tax Department (ITD) terminology such as TIS, TDS, and TCS.
• Statistics and success rates of PAN-related fraud investigations in Uttar Pradesh over the last five years.

The DGP Office transferred the matter to the Cyber Crime Headquarters on November 25, 2025. However, they did not provide a substantive response within the mandatory 30-day window. This silence led to a “Deemed Refusal,” forcing the appellant to file a First Appeal on January 3, 2026.

---

Jurisdictional Evasion: “Not Related to Cyber Crime”

A pivotal conflict emerged when the Cyber Crime HQ finally issued a response. The FIR cites Sections 66C and 66D of the IT Act. However, the Public Information Officer (PIO) claimed that several points of the request were “Not Related to Cyber Crime. These sections specifically address identity theft and cheating by personation using computer resources.

In light of this, transparency in high-value financial scams becomes crucial. Effective communication and clarity in handling such cases can help build trust and ensure better accountability within the system. Without proper transparency, victims may feel marginalised, and the potential for effective resolution could diminish. This shows that authorities must engage openly. They should provide comprehensive information about ongoing investigations and their implications for victims and society at large.

The appellant countered this in a formal rejoinder, arguing that this claim is a legal fallacy. Under the Constitution of India, investigating crimes is the exclusive domain of the State. Maintaining law and order is also exclusively managed by the State. The FIR includes cyber-specific sections of the IT Act. Therefore, the State Police cannot claim that data regarding its own investigations is unrelated to them. They cannot claim that training for these crimes is unrelated either.

The Role of Supervisory Oversight

One of the most significant issues raised in the appeal is the rank of investigating officers. The PIO cited Section 78 of the IT Act, which permits an officer of the rank of Inspector to investigate. The appellant argued that according to the Uttar Pradesh Police Manual and MHA Guidelines, scams exceeding ₹10 Crore are high-value scams. Such scams require mandatory day-to-day supervision by Gazetted Officers. Officers like a DSP, Additional SP, or SP rank are needed. The appellant argues that by only disclosing the “minimum legal rank,” the PIO intentionally suppressed information. This affected the administrative hierarchy responsible for monitoring a ₹500 million scam. (

---

Administrative Accountability and Section 6(3)

The case highlights a common procedural hurdle in RTI litigation: the failure to transfer requests under Section 6(3). If the Cyber Crime PIO genuinely believed the information was held by another department, then the law required a transfer within five days. The PIO had to transfer the request to the correct department. The departments could include the Economic Offences Wing or the Training Directorate. Instead, the PIO provided a blanket denial. The appellant argues this constitutes willful obstruction punishable under Section 20 of the RTI Act. (Transparency in High-Value Financial Scams)

The DGP Headquarters eventually stepped in on February 21, 2026, issuing a “highest priority” directive to the Cyber Crime HQ. The directive warned the Cyber Crime PIO. If they failed to provide the expected information, they would be personally liable under Section 5(5) of the RTI Act.

The Second Appeal: Seeking Judicial Intervention

The matter reached the Uttar Pradesh State Information Commission (Case No: S01/A/0234/2026) with a hearing scheduled for March 17, 2026. The appellant’s counter-submission for this hearing focused on three core pillars:

1. Direct Disclosure: Demanding specific designations of supervisory officers and training curriculum details.
2. Financial Penalty: Requesting a penalty of ₹250 per day on the PIO. This request is under Section 20(1) for providing misleading and evasive responses.
3. Disciplinary Recommendation: Calling for action against the PIO for persistent negligence and ignoring the DGP HQ’s internal warnings.

---

Conclusion: The Stakes for the Citizen

This legal battle is about more than one man’s misuse of PAN. It is about the transparency of police performance. It also concerns the state’s obligation to protect a citizen’s financial identity. When police wings use jurisdictional technicalities, they avoid disclosing success rates and training protocols. This behaviour suggests a lack of accountability in handling high-value economic offences. (Transparency in High-Value Financial Scams)

The Commission is currently deliberating. The case serves as a reminder that the RTI Act is a primary tool. It helps dismantle the “wall of silence” often encountered in bureaucratic hierarchies. The final order will significantly indicate the state’s priority. It will show if institutional protectionism is prioritized. Alternatively, it could emphasize the citizen’s constitutional right. This right allows them to know how the law is enforced in their name.

Here are the specific application identifiers, contact details, and web links for the public authorities involved in your case, based on the provided documents:

1. Case and Application Identifiers

• State Information Commission Case Number: S01/A/0234/2026.
• Commission Registration Number: A-20260102428.
• RTI Online Registration Number: DGPOF/R/2025/80632.
• First Appeal Registration Number: DGPOF/A/2026/60002.
• RTI Transaction ID: DHOMER20250000001014.

---

2. Public Authority Contact Details (Transparency in High-Value Financial Scams)

Authority	Name/Designation	Email Address	Mobile Number
DGP Office (PIO)	Dinesh Kumar Dwivedi (Addl. SP)	rti.dgphq-up@gov.in	9454405121
Cyber Crime HQ (FAA)	Appellate Authority (Cyber Crime)	sp-cyber.lu@up.gov.in	945441XXXX
Cyber Crime HQ (PIO)	Rajesh Kumar Yadav (SP)	sp-cyber.lu@up.gov.in	Not provided in email
State Info Commission	Court Room S-1	hearingcourts1.upic@up.gov.in	Not provided
DGP Control Room	Monitoring Desk	dgpcontrol-up@nic.in	Not provided

---

3. Relevant Web Links (Transparency in High-Value Financial Scams)

• Uttar Pradesh State Information Commission (UPSIC): https://upsic.up.gov.in/.
• RTI Online Uttar Pradesh (Request Status): https://rtionline.up.gov.in/.
• Case Tracking Link (Specific Request): https://rtionline.up.gov.in/request/regdetails.php?regId=rfBJPVOA4FT1GMf0CqKZtVOU.
• First Appeal Tracking Link: https://rtionline.up.gov.in/request/regdetails.php?regId=rfBJPVOA85FZMsEnhlyKfW385b4%3D.

Would you like me to draft a follow-up email to the Cyber Crime PIO? I can use these official email addresses. We could demand a specific update before the next commission update.