The Wire: New Delhi: Saturday, July 07, 2018.
The Supreme
Court on Thursday reserved its order on public interest litigation Aseer Jamal
v. Union Of India that brings to light the grievance of a large portion of the
population in being unable to exercise the Right to Information (RTI).
A bench of
Chief Justice Dipak Misra, justice DY Chandrachud and justice AM Khanwilkar
asserted that guidelines shall be issued in pursuance of which the states may
amend the RTI rules of 2012 to secure access of information to inter alia the
visually impaired, the orthopaedically handicapped and those unable to write or
converse in Hindi.
Addressing
the concerns, attorney general K.K. Venugopal drew the attention of the bench
to the proviso to section 6(1) of the RTI Act of 2005, which requires the
central or state public information officer to render all reasonable assistance
to reduce in writing a request made orally when a person could not make a
request in writing.
“Several
states have a provision of Braille, even audio files and help desks…,” he
added.
“Where the
applicant may not know which PIO (public information officer) to apply to,
Sub-Section (3) of Section 6 requires the PIO to whom an application is made in
respect of information held by another public authority to transfer the same to
the latter within 5 days,” submitted the attorney general.
“The online
mode is better than the offline mode … it helps in preventing the misuse of
public money … all states do not allow an online mode … Your Lordships could
direct the same,” he continued.
“The states
of Karnataka, Maharashtra and Punjab have set the online mode,” noted justice Chandrachud.
The attorney
general also referred to rules 5 and 6 of the RTI rules, exempting persons
Below Poverty Line from the payment of application fee and fee for providing
information and accepting fee in cash, DD, banker’s cheque and even electronic
means such as the RuPay card, respectively.
When the
bench inquired if the rules also apply to the states, the attorney general
conceded that guidelines may be issued in respect of aspects not covered under
the rules.
“The AG is
saying this is the situation of the Centre … it may not be so in the states …
we will issue guidelines so that the rules may be amended,” the Chief Justice
assured the counsel for the petitioner.