This case is a clear example of PIO UPIC & Mockery of RTI in practice. Specifically, a citizen filed five specific questions with the Uttar Pradesh Information Commission; however, the PIO UPIC answered only one, copying that same answer across four unrelated queries. Subsequently, the First Appellate Authority then closed the matter without examining any of the unresolved points, dismissively calling the reply “complete” simply because it matched the shape of the original request. This pattern — technically timely, yet substantively empty — is precisely what makes the phrase PIO UPIC & Mockery of RTI apt rather than exaggerated. Ultimately, real transparency requires answering each question on its own terms, rather than recycling one response five times over. Until appellate bodies begin reading requests point-by-point, citizens will continually face this same wall, forced into second and third appeals just to obtain answers that the law already entitles them to.

PIO UPIC & Mockery of RTI: How “Information Provided” Can Mean No Information At All

Right to Information (RTI) applications rest on a simple premise. A citizen asks a specific question, and a public authority gives a specific answer. But what happens when the PIO UPIC — the Public Information Officer of the Uttar Pradesh Information Commission — stands accused of undermining the very Act it exists to protect? A recent case before the Commission offers a textbook example of what critics increasingly call a mockery of RTI. Procedural box-ticking can quietly defeat the purpose of transparency law. The gap between sending a reply and actually giving the information matters more than it might seem.

The Request to PIO UPIC: Five Specific Questions

In March 2026, an applicant filed an RTI application directly with the Uttar Pradesh Information Commission. The application, therefore, asked the PIO UPIC five distinct questions about how Public Information Officers across Mirzapur district were functioning:

1. Furthermore, which PIOs were registered with official government email IDs (ending in @up.gov.in or @nic.in) on the RTI portal?
2. How many PIOs were not registered or, furthermore, not using the portal at all?
3. Whether any circular permitted PIOs to deliver official RTI responses over personal WhatsApp
4. What mechanism existed to reconcile cases where PIOs gave contradictory delivery dates
5. Whether any Commission directive mandated the use of official emails, in line with Supreme Court guidance on digital transparency

Each question targeted a different accountability gap. These gaps covered registration compliance, portal usage, informal communication channels, record-keeping, and policy enforcement. None of them could reasonably share a single answer.

The Reply from PIO UPIC: One Answer, Copy-Pasted Four Times

The PIO UPIC responded a month later. Only the first question received a substantive answer — a report attributed to a “CATS Development” cell. For questions two through five, the reply simply stated “as per Point No. 1,” reusing the same answer for four entirely different queries.

This pattern deserves a name, because it appears often enough to have one. It’s exactly the kind of pattern that earns the label mockery of RTI. Technically, the PIO issued a reply within the statutory timeframe. Practically, four of five questions went unanswered. A citizen asking about email registration doesn’t get an answer about certified circulars by receiving the same registration list twice. The RTI Act’s Section 7 obligates a PIO to provide the information sought — not the closest available substitute.

A handwritten note attached to the file, dated before the formal reply, did contain a relevant admission. It stated that four PIOs from the district had registered but weren’t using their official email IDs. It’s a small detail, but a telling one. The information existed. Nobody organized it into a proper response.

The First Appeal: A Decision That Ignored the Complaint Against PIO UPIC

Under Section 19(1), the applicant escalated the matter to the First Appellate Authority. The appeal laid out precisely which points the PIO UPIC had left unanswered, and why. The resulting order, however, disposed of the appeal with a general finding. It held that the sequence of information supplied matched the sequence requested, and that the reply was therefore “complete.

This is where the case transitions from an isolated lapse to a fuller mockery of RTI. Moreover, an appellate order should rigorously test whether the grounds raised were actually addressed. Importantly, matching the order of questions to the order of answers is not synonymous with providing satisfactory responses. Furthermore, the order made no finding on the certified-copy request, the monitoring-mechanism query, or the Supreme Court compliance question. Notably, these were the three points the appeal specifically focused on.

Why the WhatsApp Question Isn’t a Minor Detail

Buried inside these five questions is a small but significant governance issue. Specifically, officers under PIO UPIC‘s own administrative umbrella were using personal messaging apps for official communication. Consequently, informal channels create real problems. They leave no institutional audit trail; moreover, they offer no way to verify authenticity independent of a personal device, and there is no consistent way to timestamp delivery. Thus, when a citizen alleges that a WhatsApp delivery date contradicts what’s recorded on the official portal, that’s not merely a technicality. Rather, it’s a question about whether anyone can trust the record of what happened and when.

This is precisely why the request asked for a monitoring mechanism, not just a policy statement. A rule saying “use official channels” means little without a way to verify compliance when someone disputes it.

PIO UPIC and the Broader Pattern: Process Compliance vs. Substantive Disclosure

Obviously, step back from this specific file, and a familiar dynamic unexpectedly emerges. This dynamic shows up consistently across many transparency regimes, not just India’s RTI framework. Upon taking a close look at any PIO UPIC response, this dynamic is thrown into sharp relief. Public authorities can satisfy the procedural requirements of a disclosure law. They not only reply within the deadline but also forward the file to the appellate authority and issue an order. Yet, remarkably, they can accomplish all of this without ever substantively answering the underlying question. While each stage appears compliant in isolation, only when you read the actual content against the actual questions does the mockery of RTI become glaringly visible.

This matters because RTI’s entire enforcement architecture assumes good-faith engagement at each level. The first appeal exists precisely to catch omissions from the PIO stage. When the first appellate order itself skips the specific gaps raised, the citizen must go one level further. A second appeal before the State Information Commission becomes the only option. It’s the only way to get a body to check whether the questions were actually answered.

What a Second Appeal Against PIO UPIC Is Really Asking For

In this case, the applicant’s second appeal keeps its requests simple and direct:

• Firstly, point-wise answers to the four unaddressed questions are presented below.
• Additionally, a certified copy of any relevant circular, or a clear statement that none exists
• Furthermore, the disclosure of the promised monitoring mechanism
• Furthermore, there should be a thorough consideration of accountability measures under Section 20 of the Act for the incomplete response from PIO UPIC.

None of this is adversarial in spirit; instead, it simply asks the Commission to answer the original questions. Ultimately, that’s a modest request, especially considering there have been three appeals deep into a process that, in an ideal world, shouldn’t have necessitated three appeals at all.

The Takeaway: Ending the Mockery of RTI

Transparency law is only as strong as the bodies interpreting it. They must be willing to distinguish between a response and the information requested. A PIO UPIC can technically reply on time and still leave a citizen with nothing usable. A first appellate authority can technically dispose of a case and still leave the underlying grievance untouched.

Cases like this remind us that RTI enforcement isn’t self-executing. In fact, a mockery of RTI doesn’t require an outright refusal; rather, it simply needs a slow accumulation of technically-compliant non-answers. Ultimately, real accountability depends on citizens who are willing to escalate. Moreover, it relies on appellate bodies that are ready to read requests point-by-point instead of in aggregate. Furthermore, it necessitates institutions holding their own PIO UPIC processes to the same standard they expect of every other public authority — especially information commissions themselves.

RTI Application (Section 6(1)) (PIO UPIC & Mockery of RTI)

Field	Detail
Registration Number	UPICM/R/2026/60146
Transaction ID	UPICMR20260000000166
Date of Filing	12/03/2026
Status	Request Disposed of (06/04/2026)

PIO Details (PIO UPIC & Mockery of RTI)

Field	Detail
Name	Mumtaz Ahmad
Designation	Administrative Officer
Office	Information Department, UP Information Commission
Mobile	9151804317
Email	jansu-section.upic@up.gov.in (also listed as section.upic@up.gov.in)
Address	Room No. 404, RTI Bhawan, Vibhuti Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow – 226010

First Appeal (Section 19(1)) (PIO UPIC & Mockery of RTI)

Field	Detail
Registration Number	UPICM/A/2026/60065
Date of Filing	21/04/2026
Status	Appeal Disposed of (23/04/2026)

First Appellate Authority (FAA) (PIO UPIC & Mockery of RTI)

Field	Detail
Name	Tejaskar Pandey
Designation	Deputy Secretary / First Appellate Officer
Mobile	9415021746
Email	deputysecretary-upic@up.gov.in
Address	Room No. 410, RTI Bhawan, Vibhuti Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow – 226010

Second Appeal (Section 19(3)) (PIO UPIC & Mockery of RTI)

Field	Detail
Registration Number	A-20260702659
Date of Filing	25/07/2026
Forum	Uttar Pradesh State Information Commission
Hearing Mode	Online

Public Authority (PIO UPIC & Mockery of RTI)

Field	Detail
Name	Uttar Pradesh Information Commission
Address	7/7 RTI Bhawan, Vibhuti Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow – 226010
General Phone (FAA office)	0522-2724941
General Phone (PIO office)	0522-2724945

Web Portal

Field	Detail
RTI Online Portal	www.upsic.gov.in