KISHAN CHAND JAIN VS. UNION OF INDIA & ORS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 360 OF 2021:

DATE: 09/10/2023

COURT: Supreme Court of India

BENCH: Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud

FACTS:

Kishan Chand Jain, the petitioner, approached the Supreme Court of India by filing a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution in 2021, raising concerns about the ineffective functioning and lack of accessibility of State Information Commissions (SICs) under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005. He pointed out that although the RTI Act was designed to empower citizens and promote transparency and accountability in governance, its objectives were being undermined by the structural and procedural shortcomings of the SICs. One of the key grievances raised by the petitioner was that most SICs were located in state capitals and operated exclusively through physical hearings, placing a substantial burden on RTI applicants residing in distant or rural areas. He argued that the lack of virtual hearing options or decentralized mechanisms effectively denied citizens timely access to information and remedies under the Act. The petitioner also emphasized that, unlike the Central Information Commission (CIC), which had implemented digital filing and hearing systems, most SICs did not offer similar online platforms, thus discouraging widespread use of the RTI framework.

Furthermore, the petitioner contended that such deficiencies in the functioning of SICs violated the fundamental right to information, which has been recognized by the Supreme Court as a part of the right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. He also submitted that the inaccessibility of these commissions created unequal barriers across states, leaving many citizens unable to effectively enforce their RTI rights. Jain, therefore, urged the Court to intervene and direct the State Governments and SICs to modernize their operations by adopting virtual hearing facilities, implementing user-friendly online platforms for the filing and processing of complaints and appeals, and ensuring compliance with the objectives of the RTI Act. The petition highlighted the urgent need for institutional reforms to promote transparency, participation, and inclusion. These concerns led to the case being heard by the Supreme Court, which acknowledged the larger public interest involved and sought to evaluate how SICs could be made more accessible and effective across the country.

ISSUES:

The central issue was whether the lack of digital infrastructure, such as online filing systems and virtual hearing facilities, in the functioning of State Information Commissions (SICs) violated citizens' fundamental right to information under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. The petitioner questioned the unequal and inefficient access to SICs across states, especially for citizens residing in remote or rural areas, and sought judicial directions to ensure that SICs adopt modern technological tools to make the RTI framework more accessible, transparent, and citizen-friendly.

JUDGEMENT WITH REASONING:

The Supreme Court directed all State Information Commissions (SICs) across the country to establish and operationalize digital infrastructure for e-filing of RTI applications, virtual hearings, and online tracking of cases. The Court emphasized that access to information is a fundamental right under Article 19(1)(a) and held that the lack of digital access in several states was a barrier to the effective realization of this right. Accordingly, it ordered the Central Government and respective State Governments to ensure that necessary facilities are provided without delay, promoting transparency, accountability, and convenience in the functioning of SICs.

The Supreme Court, in its judgment, emphasized that the right to access information under the Right to Information Act, 2005, is a fundamental right, intrinsic to the citizens’ freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. The Court noted that in the modern age, where technology plays a vital role in governance and transparency, the Information Commissions must adapt to digital platforms. It observed that the physical filing system, which many State Information Commissions still relied on, was not only outdated but also created unnecessary barriers for citizens, especially those living in rural or remote areas. The Court highlighted that the absence of e-filing systems and virtual hearings undermined the goal of providing transparent and efficient services to the public. It noted that the failure to implement such systems infringed upon the citizen’s right to access information and effectively use the RTI Act.

Furthermore, the Court recognized that the COVID-19 pandemic had accelerated the use of technology in legal and governmental functions, including virtual hearings and e-filing systems. It noted that many Central and State Commissions had adopted these technologies, but several states had failed to fully operationalize them. The Court ruled that the establishment of e-filing systems and the promotion of virtual hearings would not only align the functioning of the Information Commissions with contemporary technological standards but also ensure that citizens across the country, irrespective of their geographical location, have equal access to justice and information. The Court issued directions to both the Central Government and the respective State Governments to take immediate steps in this regard, ensuring the digital infrastructure is in place to make the RTI process more accessible, transparent, and efficient.

ANALYSIS:

In this case, the Supreme Court addressed the issue of the lack of digital infrastructure in the State Information Commissions (SICs), which hampered citizens’ ability to effectively access information under the Right to Information (RTI) Act. The petitioner highlighted that most SICs were physically located in state capitals, with no provisions for virtual hearings or online filing systems. This created significant barriers for citizens, particularly those residing in rural or remote areas, who had to bear the burden of travel and logistical challenges in pursuing their RTI applications. The Court recognized that the lack of such digital infrastructure violated the fundamental right to access information, which is enshrined in Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution as part of the right to freedom of speech and expression. By failing to adapt to modern technological tools, SICs were undermining the objectives of the RTI Act, which was designed to empower citizens and promote transparency in governance. The Court noted that the absence of e-filing systems and virtual hearings resulted in inequality, making it harder for citizens in distant areas to enforce their rights effectively.

The Supreme Court ruled that the implementation of digital infrastructure, including online filing systems and virtual hearings, was necessary to ensure equal access to justice and information across the country. The Court emphasized the need for both the Central and State Governments to take immediate steps to operationalize such facilities in SICs. It acknowledged the role of technology in modernizing governance and transparency, especially in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, which had accelerated the adoption of virtual platforms. The Court further stated that the failure to implement these systems hindered the very purpose of the RTI Act and was a violation of citizens’ rights. The ruling highlighted the importance of ensuring accessibility for all citizens, regardless of geographical location, and directed that e-filing systems and virtual hearings be implemented without delay. This judgment not only sought to enhance the efficiency of SICs but also aimed to make the RTI process more citizen-friendly and transparent.