ASEER JAMAL v. UNION OF INDIA INSC 850

ASEER JAMAL v. UNION OF INDIA INSC 850 Introduction The case of Aseer Jamal v. Union of India, adjudicated by a bench led by Chief Justice Dipak Misra, addressed the crucial issue of accessibility of information for visually impaired individuals and other disadvantaged groups under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act). The petition raised concerns about the practical implementation of the RTI Act for these groups and sought the Court's intervention to ensure their right to information.

Background The petitioner, Aseer Jamal, argued that several sections of the population, including visually impaired individuals, people with other disabilities, those below the poverty line, and those without internet access, faced significant barriers in accessing information under the RTI Act. Specifically, the petitioner challenged the provisions of Section 6 of the RTI Act, contending that they constituted unreasonable classification and violated Article 14 of the Indian Constitution, which guarantees equality before the law.

Legal Issues Right to Information as a Fundamental Right: The right to information is considered an intrinsic part of the right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. Accessibility of Information for Disadvantaged Groups: The core issue was whether the provisions of the RTI Act were adequately accessible to visually impaired individuals and other disadvantaged groups. Constitutionality of Section 6 of the RTI Act: The petitioner argued that Section 6, which deals with the request for obtaining information, was discriminatory and violated the principle of equality under Article 14.

Judgment Right to Information as a Fundamental Right Chief Justice Dipak Misra, in his opening remarks, cited Nobel Laureate T.S. Eliot's words on the loss of wisdom in the pursuit of knowledge and information. He emphasized that in the contemporary world, information is a powerful tool, and the right to information is an integral part of the right to freedom of speech and expression. This principle was previously established in landmark cases such as Secretary, Ministry of Information & Broadcasting, Government of India v. Cricket Association of Bengal and People’s Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India.

Addressing the Petitioner's Concerns The Court examined the petitioner's claims, which centered on the practical difficulties faced by illiterate, visually impaired, and other disadvantaged individuals in accessing information. The petitioner contended that Section 6 of the RTI Act created unreasonable classifications and was thus unconstitutional. However, the Court found it unnecessary to delve into the constitutional validity of Section 6 as the primary relief sought was the provision of effective mechanisms to facilitate access to information for these groups.

Provisions of the RTI Act The Court reviewed the Statement of Objects and Reasons of the RTI Act, which aims to promote transparency and accountability in public authorities. Section 2(j) defines the right to information, encompassing various forms of accessing information, such as inspection of documents, taking notes, and obtaining information in electronic or print formats.

Section 6(1) outlines the procedure for requesting information, including provisions for assistance to individuals who are unable to make written requests. The Court noted that this section obligates public information officers to assist such individuals by reducing their oral requests to writing.

Government's Measures and the Court's Observations Attorney General K.K. Venugopal provided a comprehensive overview of the measures already in place to assist visually impaired individuals and other disadvantaged groups. These measures include the provision of information in Braille, audio formats, and toll-free hotline numbers for RTI-related queries. The Court acknowledged these efforts and highlighted the existing mechanisms, such as assistance under Section 6(1) and the provision for transferring applications to the appropriate public authority under Section 6(3).

The Court also considered the rules framed by the Central Government under Section 27 of the RTI Act, which exempt individuals below the poverty line from paying application fees and provide various modes of fee payment to ensure inclusivity.

Directives and Conclusion While the Court appreciated the steps taken by the government, it recognized the need for continuous improvement and the adoption of advanced technologies to further enhance accessibility. The Court directed that the petitioner be allowed to submit a representation to the competent authority, pointing out additional modes of facilitating access to information. The authority was urged to address such representations with empathy and explore further possibilities to assist disadvantaged groups effectively.

The writ petition was disposed of with these observations, and no costs were imposed.

Key Takeaways Reaffirmation of Right to Information: The judgment reaffirmed the right to information as a fundamental right under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. Accessibility for Disadvantaged Groups: The Court emphasized the need for public authorities to ensure that visually impaired individuals, people with disabilities, and economically disadvantaged groups have effective access to information. Continuous Improvement and Adoption of Technology: The Court encouraged the use of advanced technologies and continuous improvement in mechanisms to facilitate access to information for all citizens. This judgment underscores the judiciary's commitment to ensuring that the right to information is inclusive and accessible to all sections of society, thereby strengthening the democratic fabric of the nation.