The following are the key takeaways from the legal dispute involving the CPIO of District Court Mirzapur and the RTI Act 2005:

1. The Basis of Information Denial

• The Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Santosh Kumar Gautam, rejected the RTI application on January 27, 2026.
• He cited Rule 26 of the Allahabad High Court RTI Rules, 2006, as the primary legal ground.
• This rule mandates that information cannot be provided if a matter is pending adjudication in court.
• The CPIO officially declared the application “not maintainable” (poshniya nahi hai) because the case file is now a judicial record.

2. Identified Legal Gaps in the CPIO’s Order

• The CPIO failed to fulfill proactive disclosure requirements under Section 4(1)(b) of the RTI Act.
• Specifically, the order did not reveal the Judicial Case Number or the current stage of the proceedings.
• The denial prevents the victim from confirming if the Medical Board Report (Letter No. 607), which proves Grievous Hurt, was actually submitted to the court.

3. The Strategy of the First Appeal

• A First Appeal (DNMZP/A/2026/60002) was successfully filed on March 30, 2026, to challenge the CPIO.
• The appeal argues that Section 22 of the RTI Act 2005 should override local court rules that block transparency.
• It contends that providing a case number is an administrative act, not a judicial one. This act should not be blocked by Rule 26.

4. Current Procedural Status

• The police have closed their involvement, stating that Charge Sheet No. Nil/2025 was filed on October 24, 2025.
• The matter is currently on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM), Mirzapur.
• The First Appellate Authority (FAA) at the District Court must make a decision now. They must determine if the CPIO was legally justified in withholding the case details.

The Legal Conflict: CPIO District Court Mirzapur and the RTI Act 2005

When a victim seeks case records from a court, they often face a specialised legal barrier. This report analyses the recent rejection by the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) of the District Court Mirzapur. It also explains why the First Appeal targets the CPIO’s specific legal grounds. Notably, issues faced by the CPIO District Court & RTI procedure have come to the forefront.

---

1. The CPIO’s Decision and Legal Basis

On January 27, 2026, the CPIO, Santosh Kumar Gautam (Additional District & Sessions Judge), dismissed the RTI request. He relied on a specific regulatory framework to deny access to the Charge Sheet and Medical Board Report. In terms of CPIO District Court processes and RTI applications, these legal frameworks often dictate what information is accessible.

• Rule 26 of the Allahabad High Court RTI Rules, 2006: The CPIO stated his inability to accept applications. This applies to matters pending adjudication.
• The “Sub-Judice” Argument: Charge Sheet No. Nil/2025 is now in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM). The CPIO classified it as a judicial record rather than an administrative one.
• Alternative Procedure: The order instructs the applicant to follow the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952. The applicant can also use the General Rules (Criminal) to obtain certified copies.

---

2. Core Issues with the CPIO’s Rejection

The rejection highlights a significant gap in transparency. While the CPIO blocked the documents, he also failed to provide basic “tracking” information required by the law. Clearly, the interplay between CPIO District Court and RTI requirements is a critical issue for transparency.

• Every public authority must disclose the status of its functions. This requirement is outlined in Section 4(1)(b) of the RTI Act. Each authority is required to proactively share this information. The CPIO did not provide the Judicial Case Number assigned to the pending matter.
• Suppression Concerns: The applicant alleges that the police suppressed a Medical Board Report (Letter No. 607) confirming “Grievous Hurt”. By denying the RTI, the CPIO makes it harder for the victim to verify if this evidence reached the judge.

---

3. The First Appeal: Challenging the CPIO

The victim filed a First Appeal (DNMZP/A/2026/60002) on March 30, 2026, to overturn the CPIO’s order. The appeal focuses on the following legal arguments. Importantly, the process follows the intersection between CPIO District Court appeals and RTI application procedures.

• Section 22 Overriding Effect: The appeal argues that the RTI Act 2005 overrides any inconsistent local court rules. This includes Rule 26.
• Administrative vs. Judicial: Identifying a “Case Number” or “Current Stage” is an administrative task. Therefore, the CPIO should disclose these even if the case is pending.
• Victim’s Right to Records: The police allegedly filed a misleading charge sheet under minor sections (115(2)/352 BNS). Therefore, the RTI is the only way to expose the missing thumb fracture evidence.

---

4. Current Status of the Legal Setup

The matter has now moved from the CPIO. It is now with the First Appellate Authority (FAA), who is the District & Sessions Judge of Mirzapur. As a result, the legal situation continues to be shaped by both CPIO District Court policies and RTI implementation.

Entity	Action Taken	Current Standing
CPIO	Rejected RTI on 27-01-2026.	Claims “Pending Adjudication” prevents disclosure.
FAA	Received Appeal on 30-03-2026.	Must decide if Rule 26 violates the RTI Act.
CJM Court	Holds Charge Sheet No. Nil/2025.	Awaiting the outcome of the evidence dispute.

Conclusion

The CPIO’s reliance on local rules creates a barrier for victims. However, the First Appeal creates a necessary legal challenge. It forces the District Court to balance its internal rules against the transparency mandates of the RTI Act. In summary, concerns regarding how CPIO District Court & RTI processes are managed remain crucial for legal transparency.

Based on the uploaded documents and the recent appeal filing, here are the specific application IDs, contact details, and web links for the concerned public authorities:

1. RTI Application & Appeal Details (CPIO District Court & RTI)

• RTI Registration Number: DNMZP/R/2025/60048.
• First Appeal Registration Number: DNMZP/A/2026/60002.
• Date of RTI Filing: 13/12/2025.
• Date of Appeal Filing: 30/03/2026.

2. Public Grievance (IGRS) Details (CPIO District Court & RTI)

• Grievance Registration Number: GOVUP/E/2025/0133877.
• Previous Reference Number: GOVUP/E/2025/0122171.
• PG Portal Reference Number: 60000250275283.

3. Concerned Public Authorities & Contact Information (CPIO District Court & RTI)

Authority / Officer	Mobile / Contact Number	Email Address
CPIO / Addl. District Judge (Santosh Kumar Gautam)	+91-9835552570	dcmir@allahabadhighcourt.in
District Court Mirzapur (Nodal Officer)	+91-7355729785	dcmir@allahabadhighcourt.in
Joint Secretary, UP Govt. (Shri Arvind Mohan)	0522-2226350	arvind.12574@gov.in
Applicant (Mahima Maurya)	+91-7355543503	mahimamauryagonasar@gmail.com
Police Station Vindhyachal (Secondary Contact)	+91-9198010433	Not Provided

4. Web Link Details (CPIO District Court & RTI)

• UP IGRS / Jansunwai Portal: https://jansunwai.up.nic.in/
• Central PG Portal (Status Link): https://pgportal.gov.in/Status/PrintDetail/ED190D0FE8DB4E91D15328793A2395E3A3F73FFB1B45EF5161A7B848F2A22FB2.
• District Court Mirzapur (e-Courts): https://mirzapur.dcourts.gov.in/

Would you like me to help you? I can track the status of your First Appeal on the District Court RTI portal in a few days.