The phrase “Deceased Defence and Digital Delays” evokes complex issues that can arise in various contexts, particularly in legal and technological fields. The concept of “deceased defence” may refer to cases in which the deaths of key individuals affect legal proceedings or the defence strategies employed. This can significantly impact cases, delaying justice and complicating investigations. Similarly, “digital delays” highlights the challenges in an increasingly digital world, where technology can hinder timely responses across data retrieval, communication, and processing. Together, these issues underscore the need for improved strategies to mitigate delays and ensure that both justice and technology can keep pace with evolving demands.

The Deceased Defence and Digital Delays: A Crisis in RTI Accountability

The Right to Information (RTI) Act of 2005 promised to shine a light on bureaucratic shadows. However, many litigants in Uttar Pradesh now face a wall of silence. The legal battle of Sadhana Tiwari vs. PIO, Mirzapur (Appeal No. S-09/A/0456/2025) highlights this struggle. In this case, public authorities use bizarre narratives and technical gaps to evade the law. Interestingly, this situation demonstrates how deceased defence and digital delays can impact accountability in RTI cases.

1. The Core Conflict: Fabricated Evidence

This dispute began with a 2006 inheritance matter. Specifically, the records excluded a Class-I heir. When the appellant asked for the names of the responsible officials, the Public Information Officer (PIO) offered a “concocted story.

The PIO claimed that every official involved in the 2006 records has died. Legally, this defence fails. Information belongs to the Public Authority, not the individual officer. Therefore, the death of a staff member does not end the government’s duty to provide records.+2. By relying on a deceased defence, public authorities overlook their digital obligations and contribute to unnecessary delays.

2. Transitioning to Criminal Liability

A revenue grievance has now become a demand for criminal prosecution. The appellant argues that the PIO committed “Legal Fraud”. For instance, the PIO provided irrelevant Civil Revenue Codes to answer queries about criminal FIR jurisdiction.+2

Under Sections 227 to 230 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), fabricating false evidence is a crime. Since the State Information Commission acts as a quasi-judicial body, this “bogus” report perverts the course of justice. Consequently, the appellant has demanded a formal FIR against the Tehsildar.+4. Notably, these criminal proceedings often arise from digital delays in the system and a reliance on deceased defence.

3. The Problem of Institutional Bias

Institutional bias remains a major hurdle. In this case, the Tehsil office investigated allegations against its own staff. This act violates the principle of Nemo judex in causa sua, which means no one should judge their own cause. As a result, the RTI responses remain evasive and non-compliant.+2. Sometimes, institutional bias is entrenched, especially when compounded by digital delays and the use of deceased defence as justification.

4. The Digital Transparency Gap

Recent developments reveal a trend of administrative “ghosting.” On April 9, 2026, the Uttar Pradesh Information Commission marked the case as “Disposed” on the CATS portal. Nevertheless, the actual order remains missing from the website. Clearly, digital delays and the deceased defence together hinder genuine transparency.

This gap creates several problems:

• The citizen believes the case is over.
• The legal deadline for a challenge begins to tick.
• However, the appellant cannot see the written grounds for the decision.

The appellant calls this manipulation Digital Fraud against the State. It effectively silences the demand for an FIR by hiding the Commission’s ruling.+2. Additionally, the pattern of Digital Delays and deceased defence creates obstacles in accessing the information needed for accountability.

5. Enforcing a Mechanism of Accountability

To fight this silence, the appellant filed a new RTI application (Registration No: UPICM/R/2026/60226). This request targets the Registrar of the Commission. It seeks to expose the internal workflow of the CATS portal.

The Commission’s own structure defines a clear chain of custody:

1. The Stenographer uploads the draft.
2. The Commissioner signs the order.
3. The Ahlmad closes the record.

By demanding the names of these officials, the appellant prevents “technical glitch” excuses. This move identifies the person responsible for withholding the judgment. Moreover, a robust mechanism limits the negative impact of both digital delays and deceased defence in the RTI process.

6. Conclusion: Protecting the Rule of Law

Authorities must not treat the RTI process as a game. If they can satisfy the Commission with stories about deceased people, the law dies^. Clearly, the deceased defence and digital delays undermine the rule of law.

The demand for an FIR against the PIO sets a vital precedent. Public Information Officers must not lie to a quasi-judicial body. Ultimately, true transparency requires the truth, backed by records, and enforced by the law.+2. To conclude, only by addressing digital delays and limiting reliance on deceased defence can RTI accountability be truly upheld.

---

Key Case References:

• Appeal Number: S-09/A/0456/2025
• RTI Filing: UPICM/R/2026/60226
• Key Actions: Recommendation for FIR and Section 20(1) penalties.+1. In fact, these actions directly challenge both deceased defence and digital delays within the public information system.

1. Case & Application Identifiers (Deceased Defence and Digital Delays)

• State Information Commission Appeal Number: S-09/A/0456/2025
• New RTI Registration Number: UPICM/R/2026/60226
• RTI Online Reference Number: CPAGPUVFX8
• Previous Commission Order Numbers:
  • 202602S09AO0818 (Date: 27/02/2026)
  • 202601S09AO0567 (Date: 20/01/2026)

2. Public Authority Contact Details (Deceased Defence and Digital Delays)

Authority / Office	Role	Email Address	Mobile / Phone
State Information Commissioner	Hearing Court (S-09)	hearingcourts9.upic@up.gov.in	Not Provided
Mumtaz Ahmad	PIO / Administrative Officer	jansu-section.upic@up.gov.in	9151804317
Nodal Officer (UPIC)	RTI Oversight	Not Provided	9415021746
District Magistrate, Mirzapur	District Authority	dm-mir@nic.in	Not Provided
SDM, Lalganj (Mirzapur)	Sub-Divisional Authority	sdm-Lalganj.mi@up.gov.in	Not Provided
Tehsildar, Lalganj	Local PIO Office	teh-lalganj.mi@up.gov.in	Not Provided

3. Web Link Details (Deceased Defence and Digital Delays)

The records reference several internal and system-specific links used for the tracking and submission of your case:

• Portal Status Link: The tracking system for your appeal is accessed via the official Uttar Pradesh Information Commission portal.
• Document Evidence Links: Your email submissions from April 9, 2026, were processed through the following internal Google Mail paths, which reference the specific message IDs used by the Commission to archive your “Addendum” and “Written Submission“:
• CATS Portal: The Complaint and Appeal Tracking System (CATS) is the primary digital mechanism used to register and update your appeal status.