Lawyer Avneesh Mishra Challenges Transparency Mechanisms in Uttarakhand, Alleging Systemic Obstruction by Vigilance Department and Information Commission

Introduction: A Test Case for Transparency in Uttarakhand

Uttarakhand-based Right to Information (RTI) activist and lawyer, Avneesh Mishra, has brought forth serious allegations challenging the operational transparency and procedural integrity of key state institutions. His complaint targets the Uttarakhand Vigilance Department – specifically naming the Vigilance Sector Haldwani, Vigilance Sector Dehradun, and the Vigilance Headquarters Dehradun – and extends deep criticisms towards the Uttarakhand State Information Commission (Suchna Ayog). Lawyer Avneesh Mishra contends that these bodies, far from upholding the principles of the Right to Information Act, 2005, are engaging in practices designed to obstruct access to information, foster delays, and potentially shield internal operations from public scrutiny. This situation presents a critical test case for the health of democratic accountability mechanisms within the state.

Systematic Evasion Alleged Against Uttarakhand Vigilance Department

At the heart of Lawyer Avneesh Mishra's complaint lies the accusation of systematic harassment and deliberate obfuscation by the Uttarakhand Vigilance Department. He details a pattern where his RTI applications seeking information are subjected to bureaucratic shuffling, being repeatedly forwarded between the Vigilance Sector Haldwani, Vigilance Sector Dehradun, and the Vigilance Headquarters Dehradun. This administrative carousel, Lawyer Avneesh Mishra argues, serves no legitimate purpose other than to manufacture delays and frustrate the information-seeking process, thereby undermining the time-bound disclosure mandated by the RTI Act.

The core of this specific dispute appears to revolve around access to the Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) governing the Vigilance Department's functioning. During proceedings before the Uttarakhand State Information Commission, Lawyer Avneesh Mishra highlighted that the Public Information Officer (PIO) representing the Vigilance Department deliberately withheld these crucial SOPs. The justifications offered for this non-disclosure were, according to Lawyer Avneesh Mishra, dubious and lacked legal standing, representing a clear attempt to operate under a veil of secrecy. This refusal strikes at the fundamental premise of the RTI Act, which empowers citizens to understand the processes and protocols governing public authorities, particularly those involved in oversight and anti-corruption activities like the Vigilance Department. Critically, denying access to SOPs prevents any meaningful public assessment of whether the Vigilance Department adheres to its own procedural guidelines, raising questions about accountability and consistency in its operations.

Conflict of Interest Concerns and Procedural Integrity at the Uttarakhand State Information Commission

The controversy intensifies with Lawyer Avneesh Mishra's pointed concerns regarding potential conflicts of interest and procedural fairness within the Uttarakhand State Information Commission (Suchna Ayog) itself – the very body tasked with ensuring RTI compliance. Lawyer Avneesh Mishra specifically questioned the appropriateness of former Additional Chief Secretary Radha Raturi being involved in handling vigilance-related matters or rosters within the Commission. He highlighted her previous senior roles within the Uttarakhand government, including positions closely associated with Personnel and Vigilance functions (as confirmed by official documentation related to the case transfer).

Lawyer Avneesh Mishra argued that assigning oversight responsibilities concerning the Vigilance Department to an individual with such a background inherently compromises the impartiality expected of the Commission. "It is deeply troubling," Lawyer Avneesh Mishra stated, "that a senior official who previously served closely with the Vigilance Department is now entrusted to oversee cases involving the same department. Such a glaring conflict undermines public trust." This situation raises critical questions about the Commission's internal mechanisms for identifying and managing potential conflicts of interest. The mere appearance of bias can be as damaging as actual bias, eroding public confidence in the Commission's ability to act as a neutral arbiter.

Bench Transfer: Addressing Conflict or Symptom of Deeper Issues?

Further procedural concerns arose regarding the handling of Lawyer Avneesh Mishra's appeal. Initially, Lawyer Avneesh Mishra expressed strong reservations about the bench assignment due to the potential conflict involving Radha Raturi. As documented in the Commission's own proceedings (referenced in the provided image), Lawyer Avneesh Mishra formally requested that his case be transferred to a different bench precisely because of Radha Raturi's prior association with the Personnel and Vigilance departments of the Uttarakhand Government.

The Commission, acknowledging the legal validity ("vidhisammat paate hue") of Lawyer Avneesh Mishra's concern, subsequently ordered the transfer of the second appeal to the bench presided over by State Information Commissioner Shri Yogesh Bhatt. While this transfer addresses the immediate conflict highlighted by the appellant, it critically points to a potential lapse in the Commission's initial case allocation process. The necessity for such a transfer begs the question: why was a case involving the Vigilance Department potentially assigned in a manner that could create an apparent conflict of interest in the first place? This incident, rather than solely being a resolution, can be interpreted as symptomatic of inadequate checks and balances within the Commission's administrative procedures designed to safeguard impartiality. It underscores the need for robust, transparent protocols for case assignment, particularly in sensitive matters involving oversight bodies like the Vigilance Department.

Broader Critique: The Erosion of RTI Principles and Call for Reform

Lawyer Avneesh Mishra's case transcends an individual grievance; it exemplifies broader anxieties about the state of transparency and accountability in Uttarakhand. It paints a picture where institutions designated as pillars of oversight – the Vigilance Department and the State Information Commission – are themselves accused of employing tactics that undermine the public's fundamental right to know. The alleged bureaucratic stonewalling, the questionable withholding of procedural documents, and the emergence of potential conflicts of interest collectively challenge the narrative that these institutions are infallible champions of probity.

From the perspective of a UPSC aspirant or a legal professional, such institutional behaviour is deeply concerning. It suggests a potential disregard for the spirit of the RTI Act, 2005, and the principles of natural justice. When oversight bodies themselves appear resistant to scrutiny, it weakens the entire framework of governance and accountability. Lawyer Avneesh Mishra's call for civil society and media organizations to closely monitor these developments is not merely a personal plea but a necessary invocation for public vigilance to safeguard democratic norms. Immediate reforms focusing on stricter adherence to RTI timelines, transparent justification for information denial, and rigorous conflict-of-interest protocols within the State Information Commission seem imperative.

Conclusion: Awaiting the Next Hearing with Critical Scrutiny

The next hearing in Lawyer Avneesh Mishra’s appeal is scheduled before State Information Commissioner Yogesh Bhatt on May 30, 2025. This hearing will be closely watched. Will it mark a turn towards genuine adherence to the principles of transparency and natural justice, compelling the Vigilance Department to be forthcoming? Or will it demonstrate the persistence of institutional inertia and defensiveness, further eroding public trust in the mechanisms designed to empower citizens through information? The outcome will resonate beyond this single case, indicating the Uttarakhand State Information Commission's commitment (or lack thereof) to vigorously defending the citizen's right to information against potential bureaucratic or institutional resistance. The critical question remains: will the guardians of information uphold their mandate, or will they succumb to the very opacity they are meant to combat?

Copy of order by information commission is below you can download!