Summary
The Supreme Court disposed of a petition seeking effective RTI access for persons with disabilities, illiterate citizens and people without internet access. It explained the statutory duty to assist oral applicants, the transfer mechanism and the fee exemption for eligible BPL applicants, while noting accessibility measures placed before it. No further specific direction was considered necessary on that record. The petitioner could propose additional methods to the competent authority, which was asked to consider them with concern and explore advanced technology. Constitutional validity of Section 6 was not decided.
Issues
- Whether further directions were required to secure accessible RTI processes for persons unable to write or use online systems.
- Whether existing transfer, fee-exemption and payment arrangements addressed the grievances.
- How proposals for additional accessible methods should be considered.
Provisions considered
- Section 6, Right to Information Act, 2005The proviso to subsection (1) obliged information officers to assist persons making oral requests by reducing them to writing and processing them. Subsection (3) provided transfer to the appropriate authority. The Court did not adjudicate constitutional validity. (¶¶ 3, 7–10)
- Rules 3–6, Right to Information Rules, 2012The Court considered the prescribed fees, the BPL exemption upon submission of the requisite proof and the alternative payment methods as addressing the identified financial and payment barriers. (¶ 12–13)
Held
- Although the petition alleged discriminatory operation of section 6, the relief pressed concerned effective access machinery. The Court found no need to decide the provision’s constitutional validity. (¶ 3)
- The statutory assistance duty required the information officer to listen to an oral applicant, reduce the request to writing and process it. This applied to people unable to write or experiencing difficulty, including visually impaired applicants; the transfer mechanism addressed identification of the appropriate authority. (¶ 7–10)
- The Court noted the Braille, audio, helpline and portal-assistance arrangements described on behalf of the Union. It did not impose a new uniform Braille or telephone-processing scheme by this judgment. (¶¶ 10–11, 14)
- Rule 5 exempted BPL applicants from the prescribed application and information fees upon submission of the required certificate. The availability of different payment methods defeated the complaint that payment was unduly restricted. (¶ 12–13)
- No further specific direction was required on the material then available. The petitioner retained liberty to submit additional accessible methods for consideration with concern and empathy; authorities were asked to explore advanced technology and further possibilities within the online mechanism. The petition was disposed of without costs. (¶ 14–15)
Result
Petition disposed of without costs, with liberty to make a representation proposing further access methods and observations calling for constructive consideration and exploration of technology.