SUPREME COURT UPHOLDS LEGISLATIVE INTENT BEHIND RTI ACT, 2005: VIRTUAL HEARINGS AND ONLINE FILING MANDATED
Category: Public & Regulatory
「 ✦ Content ✦ 」
Facts of the Case –
The present case arises from a writ petition being filed by Kishan Chand Jain under Article 32 of the Indian Constitution. He sought directions from the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India to improve the functioning of State Information Commissions (hereinafter referred to as "SIC") under RTI Act, 2005.
Legal Provisions –
Section 4 of RTI Act, 2005 – Obligations of public authorities
Section 18of RTI Act, 2005 – Powers and functions of Commission
Section 19 of RTI Act, 2005 - Appeal
Section 20of RTI Act, 2005 - Penalties
Section 25 of RTI Act, 2005 – Monitoring and reporting
Section 26 of RTI Act, 2005 – Appropriate Government to prepare programmes.
Contentions of the Petitioner –
The primary argument of the petitioner in this case was that the legislative intent behind RTI Act, 2005 is to provide access of public information to every citizen, ensuring that public resources are not compromised. He stated that SICs present functioning is not furthering this legislative intent of the statute. The location of SICs being limited to only the capital of each state is affecting the reach of the RTI framework to citizens who are living in rural or remote areas. He suggested that these problems can be solved by introducing virtual hearings. He also suggested introducing online filing mechanism by every SIC as many SIC lacked this system. He also request the Hon'ble Supreme court to impose a fixed time period within which applications and appeals will be disposed of by the SICs. He further also requested for mandating filing of Annual reports on RTI implementation by the mentioned organization.
Contentions of the Respondent –
The Respondents on the other side argued that the framework which is existing under the RTI Act, 2005 already addresses the legislative intent of ensuring access to information. They also argued that the reason behind SICs being located usually in the capital of state is based on considerations of administration and logistics. The agreed on the point that online filing will improve accessibility, but the implementation of such measures involves increased resource requirement as well as developing infrastructure. The assured the court that the SICs are working in the direction of improving efficiency and transparency by implementing initiatives. The contented that interference by the Court in this regard will be detrimental to the independence of these quasi-judicial bodies.
Court Analysis and Judgement –
The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in this case reaffirmed Right to information as fundamental component of transparency and accountability in public governance. The Court pointed out that delay in disposing application and appeals filed under RTI violates the very purpose of the RTI Act, 2005. They agreed that the location of SICs being limited to just the capital of the state reduces its reach to rural areas. However, the court also took into consideration the problem of administration and logistics which were raised by the Respondents. It was held that the RTI Act, 2005 does not mandate a specific time period for the disposal of cases, however, it imposes an obligation on SICs to ensure efficient and speedy access to information for all. The Hon'ble Supreme court directed the respondents in this case to take appropriate measures to ensure provision of virtual hearings and online filing systems where it is practically possible. The Writ petition was accordingly disposed of.
OLQ is a Pan-India basis law firm connecting legal expertise nationwide.
WRITTEN BY: ANURAG DAS
GUIDED BY: ADVOCATE ANIK
