KISHAN CHAND JAINversusUNION OF INDIA & ORS

                   [2023] 14 S.C.R. 477 : 2023 INSC 915



                              CASE DETAILS
                          KISHAN CHAND JAIN
                                        v.
                         UNION OF INDIA & ORS
                   (Writ Petition (Civil) No. 360 of 2021)
                             OCTOBER 09, 2023
           [DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, CJI,
            J. B. PARDIWALA AND MANOJ MISRA, JJ.]
                                HEADNOTES

     Issue for consideration: The petitioner urges that the State Information
Commissions should allow the option of virtual hearings along with physical
hearings.
      Constitution of India – Art. 21 – Access to justice:
      Held: 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 – The ability to access legal
institutions empowers individuals to understand and exercise their legal
and constitutional rights – Access to justice enhances the quality of human
life and, therefore, is an important facet of right to life u/Art. 21. [Para 19]
     Constitution of India – Arts. 14, 21, 39A – Constitutional duty
of the organs of the State to provide with means for access to justice:
       Held: Art. 39A of the Constitution recognizes the rights of citizens to
equal justice and free legal aid – Reading Arts. 14, 21, and 39A harmoniously,
it is evident that is the constitutional duty of the organs of the state to provide
individuals with the means of access to justice in an effective and efficient
manner – Particularly, it is duty of the Government to raise the standards
of infrastructure by adopting technology to make institutional processes
accessible and inclusive. [Para 20]
     Information Technology – Technological advancements – Virtual
Courts – Video-conferencing – Expansion of courtroom area beyond
the walls of the courtroom:
                               477
478           SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2023] 14 S.C.R.


      Held: The recent technological advancements in terms of video-
conferencing must be used to promote inclusion of people living in remote
areas within the fold of the justice delivery mechanism – Physical courts
require the litigants and parties living in remote areas to travel long distances
to appear before the court – With increasing costs of travel and other related
expenses, video-conferencing solutions provide a cost-effective and efficient
alternative to the physical courts – Technology allows to create and use a
“virtual courtroom” which is as real as any physical courtroom – In more
than one-way, virtual courts democratize legal processes by expanding the
courtroom area beyond the walls of the courtroom. [Para 21]
      Constitution of India – Constitutional duty of every adjudicatory
institution to adopt technological solutions:
       Held: It is a constitutional duty of every adjudicatory institution, may
it be courts, tribunals, or commissions, 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 – The use of technology is no
longer an option – Properly deployed for the purpose of conducting hybrid
or virtual hearings, technology has the potential to ensure access to justice
by obviating the need for citizens to travel long distances to secure the right
of being heard. [Para 22]
     Right to Information Act, 2005 – State Information Commissions
directed to provide hybrid mode of hearing:
      Held: Access to the Information Commissions is integral to securing
the right to information, which is a necessary concomitant of right to
equality u/Art. 14, the freedom of speech and expression u/Art. 19(1)(a)
of the Constitution, and the right to life under Art. 21 – It was directed that
all SICs across the country must provide hybrid modes of hearing to all
litigants for the hearing of complaints as well as appeals – All SICs must
provide an option for availing of a hybrid mode of hearing which shall be
at the discretion of the applicant, or as the case may be, the appellant – The
links for availing of the option must be stipulated in the daily cause list of
the Information Commissions across the country – Apart from that, SICs
directed to ensure that e-filing of complaints and appeals is provided in a
streamlined manner to every litigant – Steps should also be taken having
regard to the provisions of s.26 of the RTI Act to ensure that service is
     KISHAN CHAND JAIN v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS                       479


effected on the Public Information Officers through the electronic mode.
[Paras 23, 24]
       LIST OF CITATIONS AND OTHER REFERENCES
      Chief Information Commissioner v. State of Manipur (2011) 15 SCC 1
: [2011] 13 SCR 505; Union of India v. Namit Sharma, (2013) 10 SCC 359
: [2013] 13 SCR 96; State of U.P. v. Raj Narain (1975) 4 SCC 428 : [1975]
3 SCR 333; S.P. Gupta v. Union of India 1981 Supp SCC 87 : [1982] SCR
365; Dinesh Trivedi v. Union of India (1997) 4 SCC 306 : [1997] 3 SCR 93;
Secretary, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, Government of India
v. Cricket Association of Bengal (1995) 2 SCC 161 : [1995] 1 SCR 1036;
Reliance Petrochemicals Ltd v. Proprietors of Indian Express Newspapers,
Bombay Pvt Ltd (1988) 4 SCC 592 : [1988] 3 Suppl. SCR 212; Anjali
Bharadwaj v. Union of India (2019) 18 SCC 246, Kishan Chand Jain v.
Union of India 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1021; Anita Kushwaha v. Pushap
Sadan (2016) 8 SCC 509 : [2016] 9 SCR 560; Brij Mohan Lal v. Union of
India (2012) 6 SCC 502 : [2012] 5 SCR 305; Swapnil Tripathi v. Supreme
Court of India (2018) 10 SCC 639 : [2018] 11 SCR 57; M P High Court
Bar v. Union of India, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 365 – referred to.
      OTHER CASE DETAILS INCLUDING IMPUGNED
             ORDER AND APPEARANCES
     CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition (Civil) No.360
of 2021.
     (UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA)
     Appearances:
      Kishan Chand Jain, Rajesh Kumar, E. C. Agrawala, Advs. for the
Petitioner.
      Nikhil Goel, A.A.G., V K Shukla, Sr. Adv., Abhimanyu Tewari, Ms.
Eliza Bar, Saket Singh, Mrs. Niranjana Singh, Mrs. Sangeeta Singh, Abhay
Anil Anturkar, Dhruv Tank, Aniruddha Awalgaonkar, Ms. Surbhi Kapoor,
Ms. Deepanwita Priyanka, Dr. Monika Gusain, Sandeep Jindal, Shubhranshu
Padhi, Nishe Rajen Shonker, Mrs. Anu K Joy, Alim Anvar, Sunny
Choudhary, Abhimanyu Singh Ga, Ms. A. Deepa, Pukhrambam Ramesh
Kumar, Karunsharma, Ms. Rajkumari Divyasana, Rajesh Kumar Sharma,
480               SUPREME COURT REPORTS                       [2023] 14 S.C.R.


Sameer Abhyankar, D. Kumanan, Mrs. Deepa S, Harish Pandey, Ajay Pal,
Mayank Dahiya, Ms. Sugandh Rathor, Ms. Madhumita Bhattacharjee,
Ms. Urmila Kar Purkayastha, Ms. Srija Choudhury, D. L. Chidananda,
Mahfooz Ahsan Nazki, Polanki Gowtham, T Vijaya Bhaskar Reddy, Ms.
Rajeswari Mukherjee, K V Girish Chowdary, Sri Harsha Peechara, Duvvuri
Subrahmanya Bhanu, Ms. Pallavi, Ms. Kriti Sinha, Rajiv Kumar Choudhry,
Dr. Joseph Aristotle S., Nirnimesh Dube, Siddhesh Shirish Kotwal, Tejasvi
Gupta, Pawan Upadhyay, Nitin Lonkar, Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Aaditya
Aniruddha Pande, Sourav Singh, Aditya Krishna, Suvendu Suvasis Dash,
Ms. Swati Vaibhav, Ms. Shruti Vaibhav, Priyonkoo Anjan Gogoi, Mrs.
Padhmalakshmi Iyengar, Milind Kumar, Vishal Meghwal, Ms. Neha Kapoor,
Advs. for the Respondents.
        JUDGMENT / ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT
                                    ORDER
       1. The petitioner invokes the jurisdiction of this Court under Article
32 of the Constitution seeking directions for the better functioning of the
State Information Commissions1 under the Right to Information Act, 2005.2
It is stated that the SICs, along with the Central Information Commission,3
play a pivotal role in the proper implementation of the RTI Act. However,
most of the SICs are located in the capital cities of the States and conduct
proceedings physically. The petitioner asserts that this imposes prohibitive
costs on applicants and appellants, especially those living in the remote areas,
as they have to travel long distances to approach the SICs. Such bottlenecks
in the functioning of the SICs deprive applicants and appellants from
effectively exercising their right to information. Therefore, the petitioner
urges that the SICs should allow the option of virtual hearings along with
physical hearings.
      2. The petitioner asserts that it is the legislative intention of Parliament
in enacting the RTI Act to provide information to applicants at a reasonable
expense. Virtual hearings further this legislative intention as they provide



1     “SIC”
2     “RTI Act”
3     “CIC”
     KISHAN CHAND JAIN v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS                           481


access to information to an applicant in a cost-effective manner. It has been
further asserted that most SICs do not have the facility of online filing of
RTI appeals and complaints similar to the CIC. Moreover, the petitioner
urged that the SICs should adopt a user-friendly digital portal to make the
functioning of the SICs more effective and productive.
     3. On the basis of the averments, the petitioner has sought the reliefs
as summarized below:
     (i)   SICs should hear complaints as well as second appeals by giving
           the option of both, physical and virtual hearing through a digital
           platform and the State Governments must support the SICs
           financially and technically to conduct virtual hearings;
     (ii) SICs must update and have self-contained digital portals with
          online facilities for:
           (a)   filing RTI complaints and appeals;
           (b)   showing the case status of pending/decided matters;
           (c)   uploading daily orders and judgments;
           (d)   uploading cause lists; and
           (e)   uploading annual reports under Section 25 in line with
                 Section 4(2).
     (iii) SICs must be directed to dispose of the complaints within a fixed
           time frame, preferably within four months;
     (iv) Norms be set up for disposal of a stipulated number of cases per
          working day by every Information Commissioner;
     (v)   SICs should prepare annual reports on the implementation of
           the provisions of the 2005 Act and provide them to the State
           Government under Section 25(1); and
     (vi) SICs should ensure the imposition and recovery of penalties from
          erring information officers according to Section 20(1).
     4. Notice was issued in these proceedings on 20 April 2021. Thereafter,
the proceedings have been listed before this Court on 21 April 2023 and
10 July 2023.
482              SUPREME COURT REPORTS                      [2023] 14 S.C.R.


      5. The RTI Act was enacted to operationalize the rights of citizens
to access information about the functioning of the government, which is
otherwise only held by the government authorities. The legislation sets out
a practical regime for citizens to secure access to information under the
control of the public authorities, promote transparency and accountability
in the functioning of public authorities, and constitute the CIC and SICs.
Thus, the RTI Act pursues the legitimate state aim of ensuring transparent
and accountable government.
       6. In view of the stated objectives, Section 3 of the RTI Act provides
that all citizens shall have the right to information. Section 2(j) defines right
to information to mean the right to information accessible under the RTI Act
which is held by or under the control of any public authority and to include
: (i) the right to inspection of work, documents records; (ii) taking notes,
extracts or certified copies of documents or records; (iii) taking certified
samples of material; and (iv) obtaining information in the form of diskettes,
floppies, tapes, video cassettes, or in any other electronic mode or through
printouts where such information is stored in a computer or in any other
device. Section 2(h) defines a public authority as follows:
      (h) “public authority” means any authority or body or institution of
      self-government established or constituted –
           (a)     by or under the Constitution;
           (b)     by any other law made by Parliament;
           (c)     by any other law made by State Legislature;
           (d)     by notification issued or order made by the appropriate
                   Government, and includes any –
           i.      body owned, controlled or substantially financed;
           ii.     non-Government organisation substantially financed,
                   directly or indirectly by funds provided by the appropriate
                   Government.
    7. Section 4 obliges every public authority to maintain its records and
computerize them to facilitate right to information under the RTI Act. Section
5 mandates every public authority to designate Central Public Information
     KISHAN CHAND JAIN v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS                            483


Officers4 or State Public Information Officers5, as the case may be, to provide
information to persons requesting for the information under the RTI Act.
Section 6 allows any person to make a request in writing to the CPIO or
the SPIO, as the case may be, specifying the particulars of the information
sought by them. Section 7(1) mandates the CPIO or SPIO to act on the
request for information within thirty days and forty-eight hours in case of
information concerning the life and liberty of a person. Moreover, Section
7(2) states that failure of the CPIO or SPIO to give a decision within the
stipulated timelines will be deemed to be a refusal of the request.
      8. Section 2(k) defines SIC to mean “the State Information Commission
constituted under sub-section (1) of section 15.” Section 15 provides that
every State Government shall, by notification in the Official Gazette,
constitute an SIC to exercise powers conferred on, and to perform the
functions assigned to them under the RTI Act. The SICs consists of the State
Chief Information Commissioner and such number of State Information
Commissioners, not exceeding ten, as may be deemed necessary. The general
superintendence, direction, and management of the affairs of the SICs is
vested in the State Chief Information Commissioner.
   9. Section 18 specifies the powers and functions of Information
Commissions in the following terms:
     “18. Powers and functions of Information Commissions – (1)
     Subject to the provisions of this Act, it shall be the duty of the Central
     Information Commission or State Information Commission, as the case
     may be, to receive and inquire into a complaint from any person, –
     (a) who has been unable to submit a request to a Central Public
     Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case
     may be, either by reason that no such officer has been appointed under
     this Act, or because the Central Assistant Public Information Officer
     or State Assistant Public Information Officer, as the case may be, has
     refused to accept his or her application for information or appeal under
     this Act for forwarding the same to the Central Public Information



4   “CPIO”
5   “SPIO”
484           SUPREME COURT REPORTS                         [2023] 14 S.C.R.


      Officer or State Public Information Officer or senior officer specified
      in sub-section (1) of section 19 or the Central Information Commission
      or the State Information Commission, as the case may be;
      (b) who has been refused access to any information requested under
      this Act;
      (c) who has not been given a response to a request for information or
      access to information within the time limits specified under this Act;
      (d) who has been required to pay an amount of fee which he or she
      considers unreasonable;
      (e) who believes that he or she has been given incomplete, misleading,
      or false information under this Act; and
      (f) in respect of any other matter relating to requesting or obtaining
      access to records under this Act.
      (2) Where the Central Information Commission or State Information
      Commission, as the case may be, is satisfied that there are reasonable
      grounds to inquire into the matter, it may initiate an inquiry in respect
      thereof.
      (3) The Central Information Commission or State Information
      Commission, as the case may be, shall, while inquiring into any matter
      under this section, have the same powers as are vested in a civil suit
      while trying a suit under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908),
      in respect of the following matters, namely:-
      (a) summoning and enforcing the attendance of persons and compel
      them to give oral or written evidence on oath and to produce the
      documents or things;
      (b) requiring the discovery and inspection of documents;
      (c) receiving evidence on affidavit;
      (d) requisitioning any public record or copies thereof from any court
      or office;
      (e) issuing summons for examination of witnesses or documents; and
      (f) any other matter which may be prescribed.
     KISHAN CHAND JAIN v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS                              485


     (4) Notwithstanding anything inconsistent contained in any other Act
     of Parliament or the State Legislature, as the case may be, the Central
     Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as
     the case may be, may during the inquiry of any complaint under this
     Act, examine any record to which this Act applies which is under the
     control of the public authority, and no such record may be withheld
     from it on any grounds.”
      10. The nature of powers exercised by the CIC or SICs under Section
18 is supervisory in nature.6 Under Section 18(3), the CIC or SICs have the
same powers as are vested in a civil court while trying a suit in respect of
the matters specified under the said provision.
     11. Section 19 provides the appellate procedure by allowing any
person who is aggrieved by refusal of information to seek an effective
redress and remedy. Section 19(1) allows any person who does not receive
a decision within the time specified in Section 7 to prefer a first appeal to
a senior officer of CPIO or SPIO. Section 7(3) allows any person who is
aggrieved by the decision of such senior officer of CPIO or SPIO to file
a second appeal with the CIC or SIC. In such proceedings, the onus to
prove that the denial of request was justified lies on the CPIO or SPIO
who denied the request. Section 19(8) provides that a CIC or SIC, while
deciding, has the power to:
     (a)    require the public authority to take such steps as may be
            necessary to secure compliance with the provisions of the RTI
            Act, including –
            (i)   provide access to information, if so requested, in a particular
                  form;
            (ii) appoint a CPIO or SPIO, as the case may be;
            (iii) publish certain information or categories of information;
            (iv) make necessary changes to its practices in relation to the
                 maintenance, management and destruction of records;



6   Chief Information Commissioner v. State of Manipur, (2011) 15 SCC 1
486                SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2023] 14 S.C.R.


                 (v)     enhance the provision of training on the right to information
                         for its officials;
                 (vi) provide it with an annual report in compliance with clause
                      (b) of sub-section (1) of section 4;
       (b)       require the public authority to compensate the complainant for
                 any loss or other detriment suffered;
       (c)       impose any of the penalties provided under this Act; and
       (d)       reject the application.
      12. The SICs exercise broad powers, including among them the power
to conduct inquiries into complaints from any person, hear appeals, and
impose penalties. They decide on matters and issues pertaining to the right
to information. In Union of India v. Namit Sharma,7 this Court held that
the Information Commissions are required to act in a fair and just manner
while following the procedure laid down in Sections 18, 19, and 20.
     13. Section 26(3)(b) requires the appropriate government, if necessary,
to update and publish guidelines referred to in sub-section (2) including the
postal and street address, phone and fax number and, if available, electronic
mail address of the CPIO or SPIO, as the case may be of every public
authority appointed under Section 5(1).
     14. In pursuance of the order issuing notice, counter affidavits have
been filed by SICs of Arunachal Pradesh, Assam, Bihar, Goa, Haryana,
Himachal Pradesh, Karnataka, Madhya Pradesh, Manipur, Sikkim, Tamil
Nadu, Uttar Pradesh, and West Bengal. The position in regard to the SICs
has been summarized in the following tabulation contained in the rejoinder:
         S.No.               Name of SIC           Whether hybrid mode       Para of
                                                        adopted                CA
             1         Himachal Pradesh (R-12)               Yes                4
             2         Karnataka (R- 14)                     Yes                2
             3         Haryana (R-11)                        Yes                4
             4         Sikkim (R-25)                         No                 5



7     (2013) 10 SCC 359
      KISHAN CHAND JAIN v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS                                487



         5     Punjab (R-35)                               Yes             6
         6     Arunachal Pradesh (R-48)                 No Mention          -
         7     Tamil Nadu (R-42)                           Yes            12-13
         8     Uttar Pradesh (R 29)                        No              17
                                                but is not opposed to
                                                   virtual hearing
         9     Bihar(R-7)                                  Yes             6
                                              but discretion to conduct
                                               hearing through hybrid
                                                mode be left to SIC
         10    Manipur (R-18)                            Yes               4
         11    Goa (R-9)                                   No             7&8
         12    West Bengal (R-38)                          Yes            3(iv)
         13    Madhya Pradesh (R -43)                      Yes             6

      15. The CIC conducts its proceedings in a hybrid manner, which
ensures ease of access to citizens in pursuing their complaints and appeals
under the RTI Act. However, from the material which has been placed before
the Court in the counter affidavits filed by some of the SICs, it is evident that
there is a variation in the practice which is followed across different States.
      16. The RTI Act is based on the principle that citizens have a right
to know about the functioning of every public authority. Correspondingly,
it also places a duty on the public authorities to act in a responsible and
transparent manner by providing information about their functioning to
the citizens.8 In the process, the legislation promotes the ideals of open
government and democracy.9 Democracy requires an informed citizenry
and transparency in functioning for the electors to hold the elected
representatives to account.10 Thus, the right to information promotes the
values of participative democracy and accountability.
     17. The right to information is not merely a statutory right for, it
has also been recognized as a constitutional right. The freedom of speech


8 State of U P v. Raj Narain, (1975) 4 SCC 428
9 S P Gupta v. Union of India, 1981 Supp SCC 87
10 Dinesh Trivedi v. Union of India, (1997) 4 SCC 306
488            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                             [2023] 14 S.C.R.


and expression under Article 19(1)(a) includes the right to acquire and
disseminate information.11 The right to information has also been recognized
as a facet of Article 21.12 This intersection with the constitutional right entails
a heightened burden and responsibility on the CIC and SICs to ensure that
individuals get access to information on matters of public concern under
the provisions of the RTI Act. In Anjali Bharadwaj v. Union of India, this
Court held that the existence of the CIC and SICs is imperative and vital for
the smooth working of the RTI Act.13 Recently, a three-Judge Bench of this
Court in Kishan Chand Jain v. Union of India14 observed that the CIC
and SICs have a prominent place under the RTI Act and they must exercise
their powers and functions keeping in mind the purpose and object of the
legislation.
      18. The RTI Act provides for setting up of Information Commissions
for providing effective access to justice to citizens to agitate their grievance
of perceived breaches of the right to information by public authorities.
Under the scheme of the RTI Act, any person aggrieved by the denial of
information under Section 7 can approach the SICs to seek redressal. In more
than one way, the SICs are authorities empowered to redress and remedy
the grievances of citizens.
      19. 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. The ability to access legal institutions
empowers individuals to understand and exercise their legal and
constitutional rights. Access to justice enhances the quality of human life
and, therefore, is an important facet of right to life under Article 21. In
Anita Kushwaha v. Pushap Sadan,15 a Constitution Bench of this Court
held that access to justice is also a facet of Article 14, which guarantees
equality before law and equal protection of laws to both the citizens and



11 Secretary, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, Government of India v. Cricket
   Association of Bengal, (1995) 2 SCC 161
12 Reliance Petrochemicals Ltd v. Proprietors of Indian Express Newspapers, Bombay
   Pvt Ltd, (1988) 4 SCC 592
13 (2019) 18 SCC 246
14 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1021
15 (2016) 8 SCC 509
      KISHAN CHAND JAIN v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS                             489


non-citizens alike. As a result, the inability of any person to access courts
or any other adjudicatory mechanism provided for determination of rights
and obligations due to institutional inadequacy is bound to result in a
denial of right to equality.
      20. Article 39A of the Constitution recognizes the rights of citizens
to equal justice and free legal aid. Reading Articles 14, 21, and 39A
harmoniously, it is evident that is the constitutional duty of the organs of
the state to provide individuals with the means of access to justice in an
effective and efficient manner.16 Particularly, it is duty of the Government
to raise the standards of infrastructure by adopting technology to make our
institutional processes accessible and inclusive.
      21. The recent technological advancements in terms of video-
conferencing must be used to promote inclusion of people living in remote
areas within the fold of the justice delivery mechanism. Physical courts
require the litigants and parties living in remote areas to travel long distances
to appear before the court. With increasing costs of travel and other related
expenses, video-conferencing solutions provide a cost-effective and efficient
alternative to the physical courts. Technology allows us to create and use
a “virtual courtroom” which is as real as any physical courtroom. In more
than one-way, virtual courts democratize our legal processes by expanding
the courtroom area beyond the walls of the courtroom. In Swapnil Tripathi
v. Supreme Court of India, it was observed that technological solutions
can be a tool to actualize the right of access to justice by providing virtual
entry to the litigants in the courtroom.17 However, virtual courtrooms are
not just restricted to allowing litigants to virtually enter courtrooms; they
also allow citizens to participate effectively in the court proceedings. The
transcendental effect of technology is not only to further the constitutional
right of individuals to access justice, but it also strengthens the rule of law
and democracy.
      22. It is a constitutional duty of every adjudicatory institution, may it
be courts, tribunals, or commissions, to adopt technological solutions such
as video-conferencing and make them available to litigants and the members


16 Brij Mohan Lal v. Union of India, (2012) 6 SCC 502
17 (2018) 10 SCC 639
490           SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2023] 14 S.C.R.


of the Bar on a regular and consistent basis. The use of technology is no
longer an option. Properly deployed for the purpose of conducting hybrid
or virtual hearings, technology has the potential to ensure access to justice
by obviating the need for citizens to travel long distances to secure the right
of being heard.
       23. In view of the above discussion, we are of the considered view
that access to the Information Commissions is integral to securing the right
to information, which is a necessary concomitant of right to equality under
Article 14, the freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) of
the Constitution, and the right to life under Article 21. Accordingly, we direct
that all SICs across the country must provide hybrid modes of hearing to
all litigants for the hearing of complaints as well as appeals. All SICs must
provide an option for availing of a hybrid mode of hearing which shall be
at the discretion of the applicant, or as the case may be, the appellant. The
links for availing of the option must be stipulated in the daily cause list of the
Information Commissions across the country. This shall be operationalized
no later than by 31 December 2023.
      24. That apart, there can be no gainsaying the fact that e-filing
provides round the clock access to courts, and in the process, facilitates
the convenience of lawyers and litigants.18 We direct that all SICs must
ensure that e-filing of complaints and appeals is provided in a streamlined
manner to every litigant. Steps should also be taken having regard to the
provisions of Section 26 of the RTI Act to ensure that service is effected
on the Public Information Officers through the electronic mode. This shall
also be implemented by 31 december 2023.
      25. All Central and State Ministries shall take steps within a period
of one month from the date of this order to compile the email addresses of
the Central and State Public Information Officers which shall be furnished
to the CIC and to all the SICs, as the case may be.
      26. In order to facilitate the implementation of this order, we direct
that the Secretary, Department of Personnel and Training shall convene a
meeting of all the Central and State Information Commissioners within a


18 M P High Court Bar v. Union of India, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 365
      KISHAN CHAND JAIN v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS                                491


period of one month from the date of this order. Comprehensive modalities
for the implementation of the above directions shall be set up.
      27. All the State Governments shall cooperate in the implementation
of the order. The State Governments shall, where funds are required, ensure
provision of necessary funds to all the SICs for setting up the infrastructure
for conducting virtual hearings. The CIC and SICs would be at liberty to
avail of the facilities which have been provided by the NIC for setting up
the websites on the S3 WAS Platform which provides for ease of access in
the electronic mode.
      28. We are hopeful that with the fulfilment of the above directions, the
implementation of the RTI Act would be streamlined to facilitate access to
justice and information to citizens.
      29. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of.
     30. This Court wishes to record its appreciation of the assistance which
has been rendered by Mr. Kishan Chand Jain on the one hand and Mr. K.
M. Natraj, Additional Solicitor General, on the other.
      31. Pending applications, if any, stands disposed of.


Headnotes prepared by:                                    Writ petition disposed of.
Ankit Gyan