Supreme Court Directs Hybrid Hearings and E-Filing for State Information Commissions: Kishan Chand Jain vs. Union of India (2023)

Date of the Judgment: 09 October 2023

Citation: 2023 INSC 915

Judges: Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, CJI, J B Pardiwala, J, Manoj Mishra, J

Can the State Information Commissions (SICs) be made more accessible to citizens seeking information under the Right to Information Act, 2005? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question, focusing on the need for hybrid hearing options and digital portals for filing appeals and complaints. The Court, recognizing the importance of the Right to Information as a facet of fundamental rights, directed all SICs to implement hybrid hearing modes and e-filing facilities. This judgment was delivered by a three-judge bench comprising Chief Justice of India Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, Justice J B Pardiwala, and Justice Manoj Mishra, with the opinion authored by Chief Justice of India Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud.

Case Background

The petitioner, Kishan Chand Jain, filed a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, seeking directions for the better functioning of the State Information Commissions (SICs) under the Right to Information Act, 2005. The petitioner highlighted that most SICs are located in state capitals and conduct proceedings physically, which imposes significant costs on applicants, especially those from remote areas. This geographical limitation, along with the lack of online filing facilities, was seen as a major impediment to accessing information effectively.

The petitioner argued that the legislative intent of the RTI Act was to provide information at a reasonable expense. The petitioner asserted that virtual hearings would further this intention by providing cost-effective access to information. The petitioner also pointed out the absence of user-friendly digital portals in most SICs, unlike the Central Information Commission (CIC), which has online filing and case status tracking facilities.

Timeline:

Legal Framework

The Supreme Court referenced several key provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005:

• Section 3: “Subject to the provisions of this Act, all citizens shall have the right to information.” This section establishes the fundamental right to information for all citizens.
• Section 2(j): Defines “right to information” as the right to access information held by or under the control of any public authority, including the right to inspect documents, take notes, and obtain information in electronic forms.
• Section 2(h): Defines “public authority” to include any authority or body established by or under the Constitution, by any law made by Parliament or State Legislature, or by notification by the appropriate Government.
• Section 4: Obliges every public authority to maintain and computerize its records to facilitate the right to information.
• Section 5: Mandates the designation of Central Public Information Officers (CPIOs) or State Public Information Officers (SPIOs) to provide information.
• Section 6: Allows any person to make a written request for information to the CPIO or SPIO.
• Section 7(1): Mandates the CPIO or SPIO to act on the request within thirty days, or forty-eight hours in cases concerning life and liberty.
• Section 7(2): States that failure to respond within the stipulated timelines is deemed a refusal.
• Section 2(k): Defines the “State Information Commission” as the body constituted under Section 15.
• Section 15: Provides for the constitution of SICs by State Governments to exercise powers and functions under the RTI Act.
• Section 18: Specifies the powers and functions of Information Commissions, including the power to receive and inquire into complaints.
• Section 19: Provides the appellate procedure for those aggrieved by the refusal of information, including first appeals to senior officers and second appeals to the CIC or SIC.
• Section 26(3)(b): Requires the appropriate government to update and publish guidelines, including contact details of CPIOs and SPIOs.

The Court also emphasized that the RTI Act aims to promote transparency and accountability in the functioning of public authorities, aligning with the constitutional principles of open government and democracy.

Arguments

Petitioner’s Submissions:

• The petitioner argued that the SICs should provide the option of both physical and virtual hearings, using digital platforms, to reduce costs and improve accessibility for applicants, especially those in remote areas.
• It was submitted that State Governments should provide financial and technical support to SICs to conduct virtual hearings.
• The petitioner contended that SICs should have self-contained digital portals with online facilities for filing RTI complaints and appeals, showing case status, uploading orders, cause lists, and annual reports.
• The petitioner also argued for fixed time frames for the disposal of complaints, preferably within four months, and for setting norms for the disposal of a stipulated number of cases per working day by each Information Commissioner.
• The petitioner further submitted that SICs should prepare annual reports on the implementation of the RTI Act and ensure the imposition and recovery of penalties from erring information officers.
• The legislative intent of the RTI Act is to provide information to applicants at a reasonable expense, and virtual hearings would further this objective by providing cost-effective access to information.

Respondents’ Submissions:

• Counter affidavits were filed by SICs of several states, including Arunachal Pradesh, Assam, Bihar, Goa, Haryana, Himachal Pradesh, Karnataka, Madhya Pradesh, Manipur, Sikkim, Tamil Nadu, Uttar Pradesh, and West Bengal.
• Some SICs, such as Himachal Pradesh, Karnataka, Haryana, Punjab, Tamil Nadu, Manipur, West Bengal, and Madhya Pradesh, stated that they had adopted hybrid modes of hearing.
• Other SICs, such as Sikkim and Goa, had not adopted hybrid modes.
• Uttar Pradesh SIC stated that it was not opposed to virtual hearings.
• Bihar SIC stated that while it had adopted hybrid mode, discretion to conduct hearing through hybrid mode be left to SIC.

Submissions Table

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court:

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a separate section, but the core issues addressed were:

1. Whether the State Information Commissions should provide hybrid modes of hearing (physical and virtual) to all litigants.
2. Whether the State Information Commissions should ensure e-filing of complaints and appeals.
3. Whether the Central and State Ministries should compile and provide email addresses of the Central and State Public Information Officers.
4. Whether the Secretary, Department of Personnel and Training, should convene a meeting of all Central and State Information Commissioners to set up comprehensive modalities for the implementation of the directions.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court:

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues

Authorities

The Supreme Court relied on several cases and legal provisions to support its decision:

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• Chief Information Commissioner v. State of Manipur, (2011) 15 SCC 1: The Court used this case to highlight the supervisory nature of the powers exercised by the CIC and SICs under Section 18 of the RTI Act.
• Union of India v. Namit Sharma, (2013) 10 SCC 359: The Court referred to this case to emphasize that Information Commissions must act fairly and justly, following the procedure laid down in Sections 18, 19, and 20 of the RTI Act.
• State of U P v. Raj Narain, (1975) 4 SCC 428: The Court cited this case to reinforce the principle that citizens have a right to know about the functioning of every public authority, which is the basis of the RTI Act.
• S P Gupta v. Union of India, 1981 Supp SCC 87: This case was used to underscore that the RTI Act promotes the ideals of open government and democracy.
• Dinesh Trivedi v. Union of India, (1997) 4 SCC 306: The Court referred to this case to emphasize that democracy requires an informed citizenry and transparency in the functioning of public authorities.
• Secretary, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, Government of India v. Cricket Association of Bengal, (1995) 2 SCC 161: This case was cited to show that the freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) includes the right to acquire and disseminate information.
• Reliance Petrochemicals Ltd v. Proprietors of Indian Express Newspapers, Bombay Pvt Ltd, (1988) 4 SCC 592: The Court used this case to highlight that the right to information is also a facet of Article 21, which guarantees the right to life.
• Anjali Bharadwaj v. Union of India, (2019) 18 SCC 246: This case was used to emphasize the vital role that the CIC and SICs play in ensuring the smooth functioning of the RTI Act.
• Kishan Chand Jain v. Union of India, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1021: The Court referred to its own previous judgment to underscore that the CIC and SICs must exercise their powers and functions keeping in mind the purpose and object of the RTI Act.
• Anita Kushwaha v. Pushap Sadan, (2016) 8 SCC 509: This case was cited to show that access to justice is a facet of Article 14, which guarantees equality before the law and equal protection of laws.
• Brij Mohan Lal v. Union of India, (2012) 6 SCC 502: The Court used this case to emphasize that it is the constitutional duty of the state to provide individuals with the means to access justice effectively and efficiently.
• Swapnil Tripathi v. Supreme Court of India, (2018) 10 SCC 639: The Court referred to this case to highlight that technology can be used to actualize the right of access to justice by providing virtual entry to litigants in the courtroom.
• M P High Court Bar v. Union of India, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 365: The Court cited this case to emphasize that e-filing provides round-the-clock access to courts, facilitating convenience for lawyers and litigants.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily driven by the need to ensure that the right to information is effectively accessible to all citizens, regardless of their location or financial status. The Court emphasized the constitutional dimensions of the right to information, recognizing it as a facet of the freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) and the right to life under Article 21. The Court’s reasoning was heavily influenced by the following factors:

• Constitutional Rights: The Court underscored that the right to information is not merely a statutory right but a constitutional right, thus placing a heightened responsibility on the CIC and SICs to ensure access to information.
• Access to Justice: The Court highlighted that access to justice is a fundamental right, and technological solutions like virtual hearings are essential to make the justice delivery mechanism more inclusive.
• Cost-Effectiveness: The Court recognized that physical hearings impose prohibitive costs on applicants, especially those from remote areas, and that virtual hearings provide a cost-effective alternative.
• Technological Advancements: The Court emphasized the need to leverage technological advancements, such as video conferencing, to promote inclusion and access to justice.
• Transparency and Accountability: The Court reiterated that the RTI Act promotes transparency and accountability in the functioning of public authorities, and that effective access to information is crucial for a functioning democracy.

Sentiment Analysis of Reasons

Fact:Law Ratio

Logical Reasoning

Judgment

The Supreme Court directed all State Information Commissions (SICs) across the country to provide hybrid modes of hearing for all litigants in the hearing of complaints and appeals. The Court held that this shall be at the discretion of the applicant or appellant. The Court also directed that all SICs must ensure that e-filing of complaints and appeals is available in a streamlined manner. The Court emphasized that the use of technology is no longer an option but a necessity for ensuring access to justice. The Court also directed all Central and State Ministries to compile and provide email addresses of the Central and State Public Information Officers to the CIC and all the SICs within one month. The Secretary, Department of Personnel and Training, was directed to convene a meeting of all Central and State Information Commissioners within one month to set up comprehensive modalities for the implementation of the directions.

The Court quoted:

• “The RTI Act is based on the principle that citizens have a right to know about the functioning of every public authority.”
• “Access to justice is a right of constitutional purport which signifies that individuals have effective means to approach legal institutions to seek appropriate legal remedies.”
• “It is a constitutional duty of every adjudicatory institution…to adopt technological solutions such as video-conferencing and make them available to litigants and the members of the Bar on a regular and consistent basis.”

There were no dissenting opinions in this case. The judgment was authored by Chief Justice of India Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud.

Key Takeaways

• All State Information Commissions (SICs) must provide hybrid modes of hearing (physical and virtual) for complaints and appeals by 31 December 2023.
• SICs must provide the option of e-filing of complaints and appeals by 31 December 2023.
• Central and State Ministries must compile and provide email addresses of Central and State Public Information Officers to the CIC and SICs within one month from the date of the order.
• The Secretary, Department of Personnel and Training, must convene a meeting of all Central and State Information Commissioners within one month to set up implementation modalities.
• State Governments must provide necessary funds to the SICs for setting up the infrastructure for virtual hearings.

Directions

The Supreme Court issued the following directions:

• All SICs across the country must provide hybrid modes of hearing to all litigants for the hearing of complaints as well as appeals by 31 December 2023.
• All SICs must ensure that e-filing of complaints and appeals is provided in a streamlined manner to every litigant by 31 December 2023.
• All Central and State Ministries shall compile the email addresses of the Central and State Public Information Officers within one month from the date of the order and furnish them to the CIC and all the SICs.
• The Secretary, Department of Personnel and Training shall convene a meeting of all the Central and State Information Commissioners within one month from the date of the order to set up comprehensive modalities for the implementation of the above directions.
• All the State Governments shall cooperate in the implementation of the order and provide necessary funds to all the SICs for setting up the infrastructure for conducting virtual hearings.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that access to information is a constitutional right, and State Information Commissions must adopt hybrid hearing modes and e-filing facilities to ensure that this right is effectively accessible to all citizens. This judgment reinforces the importance of technology in promoting access to justice and aligns with the constitutional principles of open government and democracy. This judgment also emphasizes the need for the State Governments to provide necessary funding for the implementation of the directions.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Kishan Chand Jain vs. Union of India marks a significant step towards making the Right to Information Act more accessible to citizens. By directing all State Information Commissions to implement hybrid hearing modes and e-filing facilities, the Court has addressed key barriers that impede the effective exercise of the right to information. This decision underscores the constitutional importance of the right to information and the need for technological solutions to ensure that justice is accessible to all.