SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(SC) 1051

D. Y. CHANDRACHUD, J. B. PARDIWALA, MANOJ MISHRA
Kishan Chand Jain – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent


Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Kishan Chand Jain, Adv. Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Adv. Mr. E. C. Agrawala, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Abhimanyu Tewari, AOR Ms. Eliza Bar, Adv. Mr. Saket Singh, Adv. Mrs. Niranjana Singh, AOR Mrs. Sangeeta Singh, Adv. Mr. Abhay Anil Anturkar, Adv. Mr. Dhruv Tank, Adv. Mr. Aniruddha Awalgaonkar, Adv. Ms. Surbhi Kapoor, AOR Ms. Deepanwita Priyanka, AOR Mr. Nikhil Goel, A.A.G. Dr. Monika Gusain, AOR Mr. Sandeep Jindal, AOR Mr. Shubhranshu Padhi, AOR Mr. Nishe Rajen Shonker, AOR Mrs. Anu K Joy, Adv. Mr. Alim Anvar, Adv. Mr. Sunny Choudhary, AOR Mr. Abhimanyu Singh Ga, Adv. Ms. A. Deepa, Adv. Mr. Pukhrambam Ramesh Kumar, AOR Mr. Karunsharma, Adv. Ms. Rajkumari Divyasana, Adv. Mr. Rajesh Kumar Sharma, Adv. Mr. Sameer Abhyankar, AOR Mr. D.kumanan, AOR Mrs. Deepa. S, Adv. Mr. V K Shukla, Sr. Adv. Mr. Harish Pandey, AOR Mr. Ajay Pal, AOR Mr. Mayank Dahiya, Adv. Ms. Sugandh Rathor, Adv. Ms. Madhumita Bhattacharjee, AOR Ms. Urmila Kar Purkayastha, Adv. Ms. Srija Choudhury, Adv. Mr. D. L. Chidananda, AOR Mr. Mahfooz Ahsan Nazki, AOR Mr. Polanki Gowtham, Adv. Mr. T Vijaya Bhaskar Reddy, Adv. Ms. Rajeswari Mukherjee, Adv. Mr. K V Girish Chowdary, Adv. Mr. Sri Harsha Peechara, Adv. Mr. Duvvuri Subrahmanya Bhanu, Adv. Ms. Pallavi, Adv. Ms. Kriti Sinha, Adv. Mr. Rajiv Kumar Choudhry, AOR Dr. Joseph Aristotle S., AOR Mr. Nirnimesh Dube, AOR Mr. Siddhesh Shirish Kotwal, Adv. Mr. Tejasvi Gupta, Adv. Mr. Pawan Upadhyay, Adv. Mr. Nitin Lonkar, Adv. Mr. Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Adv. Mr. Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, AOR Mr. Sourav Singh, Adv. Mr. Aditya Krishna, Adv. Mr. Suvendu Suvasis Dash, AOR Mr. Suvendu Suvasis Dash, Adv. Ms. Swati Vaibhav, Adv. Ms. Shruti Vaibhav, Adv. Mr. Priyonkoo Anjan Gogoi, Adv. Mrs. Padhmalakshmi Iyengar, Adv. Mr. Milind Kumar, AOR Mr. Vishal Meghwal, Adv. Ms. Neha Kapoor, Adv.

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 Commissions,1[“SIC”] under the Right to Information Act, 2005.,2[“RTI Act”] It is stated that the SICs, along with the Central Information Commission,3[“CIC”] 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


Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top