Key Takeaways

• The RTI application highlights significant gaps in hybrid hearing compliance, emphasizing the challenges citizens face in seeking justice.
• The Supreme Court mandates hybrid hearings by December 31, 2023, ensuring access to information for all citizens.
• The applicant’s experience included undue delays, connectivity issues, and allegations of mismanagement during the hybrid hearing process.
• This RTI serves as a test case for accountability of quasi-judicial bodies, exposing real-world challenges in implementing hybrid hearings effectively.
• The outcome will reflect the UPIC’s readiness to adopt technology and transparency, crucial for addressing gaps in hybrid hearing compliance.

⚖️ The Quest for Accessible Justice: A Citizen’s RTI Highlights Gaps in Hybrid Hearing Compliance

The Right to Information (RTI) Act is a cornerstone of Indian democracy, promising transparency and accountability. A citizen recently filed an RTI application with the Uttar Pradesh Information Commission (UPIC). This application highlights significant challenges that citizens face when seeking justice. This situation becomes particularly clear with the gaps in compliance about the Supreme Court’s mandate for hybrid hearings.

This post delves into the critical details of the RTI application. It not only seeks specific information. But also questions if quasi-judicial bodies adhere to the principles of efficient justice. It examines reasoned justice about hybrid hearing compliance gaps.

---

🏛️ The Supreme Court Mandate but Gaps in Hybrid Hearing Compliance: A Constitutional Imperative

The core of the matter rests on the landmark Supreme Court order dated October 09, 2023, by CJI Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, Justice J B Pardiwala, and Justice Manoj Mishra. This order unequivocally directed all State Information Commissions (SICs) across the country. They must operationalize hybrid modes of hearing by December 31, 2023.

The Court underscored that access to Information Commissions is “integral to securing the right to information.” This access is essential for ensuring fundamental rights. These include equality (Article 14), freedom of speech and expression (Article 19(1)(a)), and the right to life (Article 21). The mandate required SICs to:

• Offer hybrid hearing options (physical + virtual) at the applicant’s discretion.
• Stipulate the links for availing the hybrid choice in the daily cause list.

This judicial directive was a crucial step. It ensures that geographical distance does not become a barrier. Prohibitive costs should also not hinder accessing justice.

---

⏳ The Citizen’s Grievance: Delay and Disruption

The RTI application, filed by Yogi M P Singh on November 11, 2024, meticulously details his frustrating experience with a hearing before the UPIC, presided over by SIC Shakuntala Gautam:

1. Undue Delay and the Right to Reason

The applicant’s case was listed for the top of the day. The court set the start time for 9:05 AM. Yet, the proceedings actually began at 1:30 PM. The key question raised is:

Please give the reason for such an undue delay because I was waiting for a hearing since 9:05 AM.

The applicant rightly invokes the apex court’s pronouncements. These pronouncements emphasize the “right to reason” as an indispensable part of a sound judicial/quasi-judicial system. As established jurisprudence suggests, quasi-judicial bodies like the Information Commission must issue reasoned orders. They must also give justifications for significant procedural deviations. An example of such a deviation is an extensive delay that wastes a citizen’s entire day. This highlights compliance gaps in hybrid hearings.

2. Connectivity Issues and Staff Accountability

The applicant reports an immediate disruption of the connection as the SIC called his name. This points to potential technical or staffing issues in managing the virtual platform. The RTI seeks transparency regarding the personnel responsible:

• Name and designation of the staff managing the hybrid hearing of the courtrooms.
• Name, designation, and mobile number of the staff instrumental in linking appellants with court hearings.

3. The Unanswered Call: Mismanagement Alleged

The most worrying point is the allegation that officials overlooked repeated calls to the “presenter of the court.” This left the applicant incapable of connecting. As a result, mismanagement ruined his “precious time.”

The application seeks the name, designation, and posting details of the presenter of the concerned court. This inquiry aims to create individual accountability. The highest court mandated the breakdown in a process that it initiated. This process was meant to enhance accessibility and highlights issues in hybrid hearing compliance.

---

🗣️ Why This RTI Matters to All Citizens

This is more than just a complaint about a single hearing; it serves as a test case for the effective implementation of judicial directions that aim to improve the entire RTI ecosystem:

• Accountability of Quasi-Judicial Bodies: It pressures the UPIC to show compliance with the Supreme Court’s mandate. The UPIC must also adhere to basic principles of procedural fairness and timeliness.
• Real-World Hybrid Hearing Challenges: It exposes the gap between policy, like the Supreme Court order, and practice. These practices include technical glitches, staff unavailability, and undue delays. These are key issues of compliance in hybrid hearings.
• Enforcing the Right to Information: Citizens must effectively join in an appeal or complaint hearing. Otherwise, their fundamental right to information is hindered. This obstruction denies their access to information. This occurs irrespective of the Supreme Court’s clear directive.

---

🔮 Looking Ahead to lessen Gaps in Hybrid Hearing Compliance

The Public Information Officer, MUMTAZ AHMAD, has been asked to supply point-wise information within the stipulated 30 days. The UPIC’s response will serve as a crucial measure of its institutional readiness. It will show their ability to adopt technology. It will also show their willingness to embrace the spirit of transparency and accessibility. This is what the RTI Act and the Supreme Court’s judgment demand. Monitoring these responses ensures that they handle gaps in hybrid hearing compliance.

The outcome of this RTI will be closely watched by activists. Citizens will also pay close attention. It will decide whether the Supreme Court’s vision is being realized on the ground. It envisions a more inclusive and accessible Information Commission.

---

What do you think is the biggest barrier to the successful implementation of hybrid hearings in public bodies?

E-filing facility is not available in UPIC is violation of order passed by apex court of India

Bhaskar Pandey (Joint Secretary), C.M.O. did not attach report but made comment as report attached