RTI Seeks Orders and Cost Records for Armed Security in Gyanvapi Suit

VARANASI: An advocate has filed a Right to Information application seeking the orders and public expenditure behind armed government security provided since 2019 to Vijay Shankar Rastogi, the 'next friend' in the original 1991 Gyanvapi suit. The request is directed to the public information officer of the Varanasi Police Commissionerate and asks for records up to August 10, 2026.

Applicant Anushka Tiwari has sought certified copies of the original request, recommendations, action and approval that led to protection, along with annual expenditure and the daily or monthly government cost associated with personnel. She also asked for later orders concerning continuation, renewal, increase or modification. The application expressly says it does not seek personal details of security staff or operationally sensitive information.

Security records sit at the boundary between transparency and safety. The public can legitimately ask who authorised an expenditure and under what rule, while disclosure of deployment patterns, identities or vulnerabilities could endanger the protected person and personnel. A careful RTI response can provide sanction orders and aggregate cost while redacting the portions whose release would create a specific, lawful security risk.

The application reportedly followed a May news report referring to a demand of ₹2,08,908 in connection with security during 2026. That figure is a subject of the request, not an independently established final cost. An RTI filing also does not imply wrongdoing. It starts an administrative process in which the public authority must locate records, apply exemptions where necessary and answer within the statutory framework.

The information could clarify whether protection was state-funded, paid, periodically reviewed or continued under a standing order. Those distinctions matter in high-profile litigation where personal risk and public expense coexist. A vague refusal would invite appeal; an unredacted operational disclosure would be irresponsible. Record-by-record reasoning is the most defensible middle path.

The next development is the PIO's response, not speculation about what the documents may contain. If records are voluminous, Tiwari has requested inspection under Section 2(j) and certified copies. Any first appeal should be reported only after it is filed. The underlying Gyanvapi suit and the RTI process are separate proceedings and should not be conflated.

Readers should remember that a request contains the applicant's questions, not the government's answers. Documents shared later should be checked for page continuity, signatures and redactions before conclusions are drawn. News coverage can describe the categories sought and the legal process without publishing details that would reveal routes, shifts or identities of security personnel.

This report is based on a Live Hindustan account published on 26 August 2026. Dalimss News independently rewrote, checked and contextualised the available information. Where a claim, allegation or opinion is attributed to a person or institution, it remains their statement; no on-scene reporting or independent interview is claimed.