The case study of RTI mismanagement at UPIC has brought to light several critical issues affecting the institution’s transparency and accountability. Numerous instances reveal how requests for information were either ignored or inadequately addressed, undermining the essence of the Right to Information Act. Stakeholders have raised concerns about the processes for handling RTI applications, citing delays and inadequate communication. This mismanagement not only limits public access to necessary information but also erodes trust in governmental institutions. Addressing these shortcomings is vital to restoring confidence and upholding the fundamental principles of transparency.

Case Study of RTI Mismanagement in UPIC: Systemic Obstruction and Its Impact

The Right to Information (RTI) Act of 2005 demands transparency and accountability in governance. This UPIC case illustrates how bureaucratic hurdles block these aims. For example, in Ashok Kumar Maurya’s recent Second Appeal (A-20251202449), officials used procedural technicalities and evasive responses to deny a citizen’s right to know, leaving the Act’s promise unfulfilled.

---

Background: How RTI Mismanagement Began in UPIC

The mismanagement started with a request for information filed on September 23, 2025. The requester submitted it to the Chief Minister’s Office (CMO), Section III, complaints. The requester UPIC. This step marked the beginning of a pattern of challenges.

Public Information Officer Vinod Sharma responded by forwarding the grievance to the Home Department, but ignored questions about personnel and legal authority. This evasive action forced a long struggle for transparency and accountability in UPIC’s RTI process.

---

First Appeal Process: Exposing RTI Mismanagement in UPIC

When the PIO fails to provide information, a citizen appeals to the First Appellate Authority (FAA). Here, the applicant appealed to Anjna Tripathi at the CMO. On December 3, 2025, the FAA used a ‘proforma order,’ a template dismissal that claimed officials had already given the information. This outcome reflects UPIC’s common RTI mismanagement, where authorities avoid real accountability.

The appellant argued that the FAA did not critically review the case and simply approved the PIO’s evasive response. This case highlights a core RTI issue: when appellate authorities prioritize protecting colleagues, transparency and public trust suffer.

The escalation of the case to the Uttar Pradesh Information Commission marks another phase, where new forms of procedural obstruction emerge.

Focus on mismanagement in UPIC

On January 30, 2026, Research Officer Nigam Bahadur Singh marked the appeal as “deficient.” He stated that “even after transfer, the first appeal has not been made before the competent authority.” The appellant, however, gave documented evidence of a First Appeal (DOCMO/A/2025/60213) filed on November 10, 2025, and disposed of on December 3, 2025. This revealed lapses in scrutiny that are symptomatic of broader RTI mismanagement in UPIC.

Failure in the commission scrutiny process

This gap shows a failure in the Commission’s review. Whether careless or intentional, these false ‘deficiency’ findings delay cases and deny justice. The appellant filed a new RTI (UPICM/R/2026/60103) on February 18, 2026, asking for internal records, including: (Case Study of RTI Mismanagement)

• A certified copy of the Facilitation Memo/Deficiency Note.+1
• The Daily Progress Report and File Movement Register were requested. The aim was to show how the Research Officer handled the file between January 1 and January 30, 2026.
• The applicant sought the names and designations of the Research Officer and PIO responsible for timely communication.

Mumtaz Ahmad, the Commission’s SPIO, gave an indirect reply. Instead of sharing file registers or names, the SPIO cited an internal order from November 13, 2025, about the CRM cell and certified copies procedures. By providing a computer-generated status report rather than movement logs, the PIO avoided the Act’s transparency rules.

Examining the details of this case reveals three main findings about RTI mismanagement in UPIC.

1. Misleading Scrutiny: Research officers can decide which appeals are heard. If reports falsely claim a First Appeal does not exist—even after official disposal—they create barriers for citizens.
2. Circular Referencing: PIOs often answer queries by referring to other non-responsive points or general orders. This “circular” logic meets the 30-day response requirement but fails to provide real information. (Case Study of RTI Mismanagement)
3. Immunity of Personnel: Withholding the names and designations of responsible officers shields them from accountability. Section 20 of the RTI Act allows for penalties. But this lack of information protects delinquent officials.

---

Conclusion: Lessons from the Case Study of RTI Mismanagement in UPIC

As of April 23, 2026, the appellant has filed a new Second Appeal (A-20260402111). This is to challenge the dismissal of his internal records request. He asks to set aside false deficiency notes, disclose file movement registers, and take action against those who give misleading reports.

For the RTI Act to stay effective, the Information Commission must show strong fairness and take active steps to remove bureaucratic barriers. The public’s need for transparency should be met with real changes. Stakeholders—including citizens, advocacy groups, and policymakers—must push the Commission to enforce responsibility and set a good example. The result of this case offers trust in the transparency process in Uttar Pradesh.

Based on the provided documents, here are the application identifiers and contact details for the public authorities and nodal officers involved in your RTI requests and appeals.

RTI Application & Appeal Identifiers (Case Study of RTI Mismanagement)

• Original RTI Application (CMO): DOCMO/R/2025/61124.
• First Appeal (CMO): DOCMO/A/2025/60213.
• Second Appeal (UPIC): A-20251202449.
• RTI Application (Internal UPIC Details): UPICM/R/2026/60103.
• First Appeal (Internal UPIC Details): UPICM/A/2026/60032.
• Current Second Appeal (Commission Actions): A-20260402111.

---

Public Information Officer (PIO) Details (Case Study of RTI Mismanagement)

Authority	Name	Mobile Number	Email Address
Chief Minister’s Office (Sec-3)	Vinod Sharma	9454412736	vsls32165@gmail.com
UP Information Commission	Mumtaz Ahmad	9151804317	jansu-section.upic@up.gov.in

---

First Appellate Authority (FAA) Details (Case Study of RTI Mismanagement)

Authority	Name	Mobile Number	Email Address
Chief Minister’s Office (Sec-3)	Anjna Tripathi	9454411282	anjna.11282@gov.in
UP Information Commission	Tejaskar Pandey	9415021746	deputysecretary-upic@up.gov.in

---

Nodal Officer Details

• Chief Minister’s Office: Sanjay Chaturvedi.
• UP Information Commission: Tejaskar Pandey.

---

Web & Contact Resources (Case Study of RTI Mismanagement)

• UP RTI Online Portal: https://rtionline.up.gov.in.
• UP Information Commission Case Tracking: https://upsic.up.gov.in/cispu/citizen/file_no_track.
• Commission CRM (Helpdesk) Phone: 0522-2724930.
• Commission CRM (Helpdesk) Email: crm.upic@mail.in.
• Commission General Phone: 0522-2724945.