Case title:
Kishan Chand Jain Vs. Union Of India & Ors.
Date of Order:
17th August, 2023
Bench:
Hon’ble CJI Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, and Justice J.B. Pardiwala.
Parties:
Petitioner: Kishan Chand Jain
Respondents: Union Of India & Ors.
SUBJECT
The Writ Petition Under Article 32 is filed by the petitioner by the way of Public Interest Litigation (PIL) for seeking multiple reliefs which are on the direction to implement the process or mandate of Section 4 of the Right To Information Act, 2005.
IMPORTANT PROVISIONS
Right To Information Act, 2005
- Section 4
- Section 4(1) and (2)
- Section 3
- Section 8
- Section 9
- Section 10
- Section 11
- Section 25 (2),(3), and (4)
The Constitution of India, 1949
- Article 32
- Article 75(3)
- Article 164(2)
BRIEF FACTS
- In this case, Kishan Chand Jain filed a writ petition in accordance with Article 32 of the Indian Constitution. The Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act)'s Section 4 provisions were to be enforced, according to the petitioner.
- In Section 4 of the Right to Information Act, public agencies are required to keep records, proactively provide information, and preserve operational transparency and proper functioning.
ISSUES RAISED
- Whether the public authorities were effectively implementing the nessesities of the Section 4 of Right to Information Act, which talks about the information and transparency in the operation of public authorities?
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE APPELLANT
- The Learned Counsel on the behalf of the petitioner claimed that the Section 4 of the Right to Information Act’s directive was not being appropriately followed by public bodies. They said that government agencies should be more proactive in guaranteeing openness and actively share information rather than waiting for specific requests.
- In order to promote improved Section 4 implementation, the Learned Counsel on the behalf of the petitioner asked the court for a number of directives, including the formation of nodal officials, transparency audits, and reporting procedures.
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE RESPONDENT
- The Learned Counsel on the behalf of the respondents explained and detailed its attempts to carry out Section 4 of the RTI Act. In order to encourage proactive disclosure and transparency audits by public agencies, the administration highlighted the guidelines and memoranda it had issued. They emphasized that, as part of their compliance evaluation, a sizable number of public agencies had filed quarterly returns to the Central Information Commission (CIC).
JUDGEMENT ANALYSIS
- In relation to the RTI Act, the court concentrated on the accountability concept. It stressed how closely the duties of public authorities described in Section 4 relate to the right to information. The Act's Section 25, which emphasizes accountability, creates a monitoring and reporting framework, the court found. It emphasized the connection between the Central and State Information Commissions and their function in overseeing the Act's execution.
- The court ordered the Central and State Information Commissions to actively monitor the RTI Act's Section 4's implementation. They were given instructions to make sure that the rules set out by the Department of Personnel and Training and the terms of the Act were followed. Additionally, the Commissions had the authority to advise public authorities on how to improve compliance when necessary.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, the court dismissed the writ petition and gave the Information Commissions instructions to ensure that Section 4 of the RTI Act is properly and effectively implemented. This would encourage accountability and openness in how public agencies carry out their duties. There were no fees assessed to either side.
