RTI Act

Serious Questions Concerning the Safety of RTI Activists, Administrative Silence, Accountability in the Functioning of Central and State Information Commissions, and Statutory Obligations

Introductory Statement:

When a citizen is threatened with legal proceedings instead of being given information, complaints submitted at the District Magistrate’s level remain pending for more than six months, and serious backlogs and procedural irregularities emerge in the Uttar Pradesh State Information Commission—even to the extent that an Information Commissioner appears to act as though they hold authority over the public rather than being an officer accountable to it—the issue is no longer about one individual. It raises questions about the democratic system as a whole.

Also Read – Procedure Established by Law And Due Process of Law: Explain

Introduction: The Right to Ask Questions in a Democracy

The Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005 in India is not merely a law to obtain government documents, but a vital tool to ensure transparency, accountability, and citizens’ participation in a democracy. The right to “know,” derived from the freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution, has been repeatedly emphasized by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in cases like Chief Information Commissioner v. State of Manipur (2011).

The fundamental objective of this law is to make government functioning accountable to the public and to help curb corruption. However, several serious questions arise—from Gram Panchayat Aura in Jaunpur district, Uttar Pradesh, to the functioning of the Uttar Pradesh State Information Commission (UPSIC) and the Central Information Commission (CIC)—which call into question the effective implementation of this law.

Also Read – Why Peaceful Protests Are a Sign of a Healthy Democracy, Not a Threat to It

1. Gram Panchayat Aura (Jaunpur): Questions Concerning Development Works and the Scope of RTI

This matter concerns applications filed under the RTI Act to obtain information about alleged financial irregularities, development works and the use of public funds in Gram Panchayat Aura (Village and Post: Aura, Block: Ramnagar, Tehsil: Mariahu, District: Jaunpur).

In April 2026, a complaint addressed to the District Magistrate, Jaunpur, accompanied by an affidavit on behalf of the complainant’s family, sought an inquiry into various development works and payment records of the Gram Panchayat.

  • Difference between official records and ground reality: The complaint raised questions concerning the allotment and construction of houses under the Pradhan Mantri/Chief Minister Awas schemes, purchase of a generator, submersible pump, purchase of dustbins under Solid and Liquid Waste Management (SLWM), construction of the national flag, MGNREGA works, soak pits, ponds, school improvement works, handpump, re-boring, streetlights, brick-paved roads, plantation and toilet construction. It is alleged that some works have been shown as completed on paper, whereas on the ground they are incomplete, missing or contrary to prescribed standards.
  • Need for an independent inquiry: These allegations require an impartial and independent inquiry. If the allegations are incorrect, they should be rebutted through relevant records. If they are found to be correct, action should be taken against the responsible persons in accordance with the law.

Also Read – From Freedom Struggle to Constitutional Democracy: How India’s Fight for Freedom Shaped the Constitution

2. Prolonged Silence of the State Information Commission versus the Efforts of the First Appellate Authority

Despite approaching the Information Commissions through several complaints and appeals, no effective information or relief was received for a long period. Subsequently, through the positive and proactive efforts of the First Appellate Authority (FAA), the District Development Officer (DDO), Jaunpur, certain important information and documents could be obtained.

  • These documents and facts formed the basis of a formal complaint submitted to the District Magistrate, Jaunpur, requesting an inquiry.
  • This situation shows that when appellate-level officers act with sensitivity, information can be obtained. However, cases remaining pending for months or years before higher appellate forums such as the State Information Commission, along with the absence of effective orders, weaken the justice-delivery process.

3. Alleged Delay of More Than Six Months in the Inquiry and Non-receipt of an RTI Reply

After receiving information through the efforts of the First Appellate Authority, a complaint was sent to the District Magistrate seeking an inquiry. However:

  • Administrative silence: More than six months have passed since the complaint was submitted in April 2026, but no information has been received about completion of the inquiry or any concrete action.
  • No reply to the RTI application seeking the status of the inquiry: After sending the complaint to the District Magistrate’s office, a separate RTI application under Section 6(1) of the RTI Act, 2005, was filed to obtain its status. No reply has reportedly been received to that application either. Under Section 7(1) of the Act, the concerned Public Information Officer (PIO) is generally required to provide the information within 30 days of receiving the application. When the information was not received within the prescribed period, the RTI applicant filed a first appeal under Section 19(1). According to the complainant, the requested information was not provided even at the first-appeal stage.

Why should a citizen have to make repeated visits merely to know the status of their own complaint? The process of taking action on a complaint and the process of responding to an RTI application are separate. Delay in one does not extinguish the statutory responsibility under the other.

4. Threats of Legal Action Instead of Providing Information?

One of the most concerning aspects of this matter is the alleged issuance of letters that, instead of providing information, sought to intimidate the RTI applicant or warned of legal action.

  • Warning letter dated 30 November 2023: A letter sent by the then Public Information Officer of Gram Panchayat Aura reportedly asked the RTI applicant to submit a reply within three days and warned that, failing this, a civil suit would be filed before the competent court. Should a citizen’s lawful objection concerning information supplied to them become a basis for threatening civil proceedings?
  • Pressure for personal appearance and reference to a ‘caveat’: In the reply to an online RTI application dated 28 September 2024, the applicant was informed that the information was ready. However, instead of sending certified copies by post, the applicant was directed to appear personally at the office. The reference to a ‘caveat’ was also allegedly used in a manner that created psychological pressure.

5. Functioning, Irregularities and Accountability of the Uttar Pradesh State and Central Information Commissions

The Right to Information can be effective only when State Information Commissions decide appeals and complaints in a timely manner, ensure compliance with their orders, and make information about their functioning accessible to citizens.

  • Pending cases and backlog: Public reports concerning pending cases and disposal by the Uttar Pradesh State Information Commission indicate a substantial number of registered, disposed and pending matters. According to a news report, as of 22 August 2026, 66,203 cases had been registered on CATS-UPSIC, 43,022 had been disposed of and 22,828 were pending. Similarly, the Report Card of Information Commissions in India 2024 reported 24,035 pending cases as of 30 June 2024.
  • Efforts by senior officials versus lack of cooperation at subordinate levels: At the senior level of the Commission, including the concerned Registrar, positive efforts are reportedly made to resolve complaints and respond to emails, with assistance provided to the extent possible. However, it has also been observed that several staff members working under them do not implement those directions and orders effectively at the ground level.
  • Orders not made available on the portal: A significant example is that several matters were shown as ‘Disposed’ on the portal on 23 September 2026, but their final orders were not uploaded or made available. Consequently, matters shown as disposed of on paper reportedly continue to remain unresolved in practical terms.
  • Uniform orders without separate examination and other irregularities: Separate applications had been filed since 2023 seeking information about different development works in Gram Sabha Aura. However, the Commission reportedly passed similar orders on the same day without examining the facts of each matter separately. Procedural concerns have also been raised in matters such as Appeal No. A-20240801712 , including orders in other matters being uploaded and applications for recall of orders repeatedly being kept ‘on hold’ without, according to the complainant, any substantive defect being identified. Such practices affect the fairness of the process.
  • Impractical insistence on personal appearance: It is not always possible for RTI applicants to attend every hearing in person. The RTI Act does not state that an applicant’s personal presence is compulsory at every hearing. Disposing of a matter merely because the applicant is absent, without considering its merits, may not be fair.

6. Two Orders of the Central Information Commission: Why Clarity in RTI Responses Is Essential

To understand this broader issue, reference may be made to two matters decided by the Central Information Commission. These orders illustrate the importance of accountability and clear disclosure of information in the RTI process. They should not, however, be treated as findings against any local officer.

(a) DoPT Matter (CIC/DOP&T/A/2025/619913)

In this matter, information was sought about the action taken on an email dated 4 January 2025. The email was stated to concern the safety of the applicant and their family. In its order dated 7 April 2026, the Central Information Commission considered the response of the concerned CPIO inadequate and observed that the application should have been transferred under Section 6(3) of the RTI Act to the concerned public authority/CPIO where the information might be available. The Commission directed that the relevant information be obtained and a revised response be provided within 15 days. The applicant states that a complaint/petition regarding non-compliance was filed on 29 July 2026. According to the applicant, the information has still not been received.

(b) Ministry of Home Affairs Matter (CIC/DOFIS/A/2025/619424)

The Central Information Commission’s order dated 24 August 2026 in this matter is also significant. The case concerned information about the receipt of security-related emails in different departments of the Ministry of Home Affairs and the action taken on them. It emerged before the Commission that the concerned CPIO had not clarified whether the email had been received by another relevant division of the Ministry. The Commission treated this as an incomplete response and directed the CPIO to coordinate with the other division and confirm whether the email had been received. If it had been received, information about the action taken was to be provided on the basis of available records; if it had not been received, the applicant was to be informed clearly. The applicant states that the information has still not been received.

These orders demonstrate that RTI responses should be clear, factual and based on relevant records.

7. National Perspective: Government Performance and the Balance under the DPDP Act, 2023

According to figures presented in Parliament in February 2026, the central rejection rate had declined to 3.26%. However, 29,034 second appeals and 3,577 complaints were pending before the Central Information Commission. Further, following the amendment to Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act under the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023, effective from November 2025, it is necessary to maintain a legally sound balance between privacy and public interest under Section 8(2), so that administrative scrutiny is not obstructed in the name of privacy. The Central Information Commission has introduced a technological initiative such as AppCoMS 2.0; State Commissions should also be strengthened along similar lines.

8. Safety of RTI Activists: Must Complainants Bear the Risk Alone?

Serious concerns have periodically been raised about the safety of complainants and RTI activists. Referring to the murder of Jaunpur-based RTI activist and journalist Ashutosh Srivastava on 13 May 2024, concerns have been expressed about the safety of those who seek information. Complaints concerning alleged harassment were also raised through various diary numbers before the Uttar Pradesh Information Commission, including D-2109230326, D-1710230490, D-1812230382 and D-1410240167.

The Uttar Pradesh State Information Commission should promptly consider the complaints and available records submitted concerning the safety of the RTI activist and their family. Within its jurisdiction and statutory powers, it should seek a factual report from the Jaunpur Police and district administration, including details of the action taken. The police and district administration should conduct an impartial inquiry into these complaints.

9. Direct Questions to the Administration and Government

The following direct questions arise for the concerned authorities and institutions:

  1. Is it consistent with administrative accountability to threaten legal proceedings instead of providing information to a citizen who has filed an RTI application?
  2. Why has the inquiry into the complaint concerning development works, sent to the District Magistrate, Jaunpur, in April 2026, reportedly not been completed even after more than six months? What is its present status?
  3. Why has no reply yet been provided to the RTI application filed to ascertain the status of the inquiry?
  4. When RTI activists complain of threats, what concrete inquiry have the police and district administration conducted?
  5. What corrective action will be taken where final orders in disposed matters are not uploaded on the portal despite directions from senior officials of the State Information Commission, including the concerned Registrar, and applications seeking recall of orders are kept on hold?
  6. If an RTI activist faces a genuine threat, who is responsible for ensuring the safety of that person and their family?

Conclusion: Strengthening RTI Means Strengthening Democracy

The fight against corruption in India cannot be won merely through investigations into major scams. It begins with transparency at the level of Gram Panchayats, municipal bodies, block offices, tehsils and district administrations.

When an ordinary citizen seeks an account of schemes funded through public money, that citizen should not be treated as an opponent or a criminal. The citizen has a legal right to obtain information, and public officials have a duty to provide it in accordance with the prescribed procedure.

If the allegations made by an RTI applicant are incorrect, the administration should respond with documentary evidence. If the allegations are found to be correct, action should be taken against those responsible. If a complainant is being threatened, an impartial inquiry into the complaint must be ensured.

“We hope that an RTI applicant will not be compelled to approach the High Court merely to obtain information. If such a situation arises, questions will inevitably be raised about the very purpose and functioning of the State Information Commission and the Central Information Commission, as well as the justification for spending crores of rupees of public money on them.”

In a democracy, public officials are accountable to the people; the people are not required to live in fear of public officials. Seeking information is a citizen’s right, not a crime. Protecting this right is not merely a responsibility of the law; it is also a test of democratic governance.

Join our WhatsApp Groups ( Click Here) and Telegram Channel ( Click Here) and get instant notifications