When Information is Power: How One Citizen Exposed the Weakest Link in Indian Democracy

A Story of Relentless RTI Activism, Legal Strategy, and the Fight for Real Accountability

Introduction

In a time when bureaucracy thrives on delay and silence, one citizen has dared to turn the RTI Act into a powerful weapon for criminal accountability. This is not just a story of one man's struggle for information, but a deeper battle against systemic immunity, administrative collusion, and the denial of justice in the name of procedure. This is the story of how an RTI applicant used the law, not only to seek answers, but to push India closer to real democracy.

Factual Case Background (For Verification)

- CIC File Number: CIC/MHOME/A/2024/657563
- Name of Appellant: Rajnish Ratnakar ( RTI & Public Grievance Warriors Of India )
- CIC Name: Shri Heera Lal Samariya (Chief Information Commissioner)
- Date of Decision: 20 may  2025

All facts and legal analysis in this blog stem from the actual case filed under the above file number. The second appeal was disposed of with an inordinate delay and without addressing the substantive violations of the RTI Act.

To verify this decision, any citizen may visit the official RTI decisions portal of the Central Information Commission: https://cic.gov.in

The Information That Could Have Triggered a Legal Earthquake

In a carefully crafted RTI application, the citizen asked the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) the following crucial questions:

1. Whether the First Appellate Authority (FAA) of MHA , G Parthasarathi  is a public servant?
2. Kindly provide me reasons for not directing the CPIO to provide me information under RTI Act 2005  as subsection 1d of Section 4 of RTI Act 2005 provides that reasons for decision by any administrative or quasi judicial body must be provided to the aggrieved party .
3. Seeking information regarding section 198 and 199 of BNS  2023 and its applicability on public servants acting as CPIO who violated direction of law of RTI Act 2005 ,whereby committed dereliction of official duty is a hypothetical questions under RTI Act 2005 for public authority of MHA who is implementing agency of this act in entire nation
These were not just administrative queries. They were an attempt to legally connect RTI violations to criminal misconduct under Indian Penal Codes and the new BNS. If answered honestly, they could have paved the way for criminal complaints under Section 156(3) of CrPC in every district court across India.

What the Citizen Got Instead: Delays, Denials, and Legal Evasion

1. The CPIO did not answer the questions in full, calling them outside the scope of Section 2(f).
2. The FAA failed to pass a reasoned order within the 30-day limit under Section 19(6) of the RTI Act.
3. The Second Appeal before the CIC was decided after over 200 days, violating Section 19(3).
4. The FAA was himself the subject of the RTI, creating a conflict of interest.

The authorities provided evasive replies, delayed responses, and refused to acknowledge the availability and accessibility of information that was clearly within their knowledge and control.

Legal Violations Committed

- Section 7(1) of RTI Act: No response within 30 days by CPIO.
- Section 19(6): FAA did not dispose of the appeal within the statutory period.
- Section 4(1)(d): No reasoned, speaking order provided.
- Section 19(3): CIC’s delayed second appeal order after over 45 days.

These are not just technical lapses — they are violations of law by public servants.

The Strategic Legal Insight

The citizen’s larger objective was to show that public servants—CPIOs, FAAs, even CICs—could no longer hide behind technicalities. By denying information that could expose their misconduct, they obstructed justice and became liable under:

- BNS Section 316(5): Criminal breach of trust by a public servant.
- IPC Section 409: Criminal breach of trust.
- IPC Section 166 / BNS Section 197: Public servant disobeying law.
- CrPC Section 156(3): Pathway for FIR registration against them.

Had the information been provided, the citizen was prepared to launch a nation-wide legal movement invoking Section 156(3) in district courts to criminally prosecute non-performing public servants.

The Real Goal: Administrative Reforms Through Criminal Accountability

This campaign isn't about punishing one officer. It’s about restoring the RTI Act to its intended purpose: a tool for transparency, justice, and democratic participation. It’s about telling every public servant in India:

"If you disobey the law, delay justice, and betray public trust — you will not just face departmental penalties, you will face criminal prosecution."

The citizen believes that true reform will only come when:
- RTI decisions are delivered within strict legal timelines.
- FAAs and CICs are held equally accountable.
- Citizens know their power under CrPC and IPC/BNS.
- Penalty under Section 20 RTI Act is imposed impartially.

The Road Ahead

The fight continues. The citizen is now preparing to:
- File complaints before the President and DoPT.
- Draft PILs challenging structural flaws in RTI enforcement.
- Launch public campaigns educating citizens about criminal remedies under CrPC.

This is not a personal battle. It is a model of how every Indian can use RTI, law, and persistence to bring real change.

For more updates, documentation, or legal resources, visit: https://rtipublicgrievancewarriorsofindia.blogspot.com/2025/07/when-pmo-hides-truth-rti-appeal-that.html

Conclusion

One citizen’s questions shook the system. Even unanswered, they revealed the cracks. But now, they also light the way forward. If more citizens follow this path, India will inch closer to the accountability-driven democracy it was always meant to be.

**Because when citizens hold the law in their hands, even the most powerful must answer.**

**Blog by: Rajnish Ratnakar**