Court Decision
Subject : Public Law - Right to Information
The Central Information Commission (CIC) recently addressed a series of complaints filed by
The complainant argued that the Railway Board failed to provide essential information regarding the location and identification of coaches designated for persons with disabilities and women. He emphasized that this information is crucial for individuals with disabilities, who often face challenges in accessing these facilities. The representatives from the Railway Board contended that they had not received the RTI applications or the first appeals initially, which led to delays in providing the requested information. They expressed their willingness to compile and provide the necessary information upon receiving the hearing notice from the CIC.
The CIC analyzed the arguments presented by both parties and noted that the Railway Board had not received the RTI applications or appeals at the initial stages. However, upon receiving the hearing notice, the Board acknowledged the need to provide the requested information. The Commission highlighted the importance of proactive disclosure of information related to facilities for persons with disabilities, stating that the lack of such information exacerbates the difficulties faced by individuals with disabilities in accessing public transport.
The CIC directed the Railway Board to ensure that the requested information is provided to the complainant within a specified timeframe. The Commission also issued an advisory to the Railway Board to disclose relevant information regarding accessibility for persons with disabilities in public domain, emphasizing the need for transparency and the use of technology to facilitate access to information. This ruling underscores the importance of accommodating the needs of persons with disabilities in public transport systems and the obligation of public authorities to ensure accessibility and transparency under the RTI Act.
#RTI #Accessibility #DisabilityRights #CentralInformationCommission
Vague 'Bad Work' Can't Presume Penetrative Sexual Assault Under POCSO Section 4 Without Evidence: Patna High Court
28 Apr 2026
Limiting Crop Damage Compensation to Specific Wild Animals Excluding Birds Violates Article 14: Bombay HC
28 Apr 2026
Appeal Limitation in 1991 Police Rules Yields to Uttarakhand Police Act 2007 on Inconsistency: Uttarakhand HC
28 Apr 2026
Nashik Court Reserves Verdict on Khan's TCS Bail Plea
29 Apr 2026
Delhi Court Grants Bail to I-PAC Director in PMLA Case
30 Apr 2026
No Historic Record of Saraswati Temple Demolition, Muslim Body Tells MP High Court in Bhojshala Dispute
30 Apr 2026
No Absolute Bar on Simultaneous Parole/Furlough for Co-Accused Under Delhi Prisons Rules: Delhi High Court
30 Apr 2026
Rejection of Jurisdiction Plea under Section 16 Arbitration Act Not Challengeable under Section 34 Till Final Award: Supreme Court
30 Apr 2026
'Living Separately' Under Section 13B HMA Means Cessation Of Marital Obligations, Regardless Of Residence: Patna High Court
30 Apr 2026
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.