Aseer Jamal v. Union of India & Ors.
Background
The petitioner, appearing in person, challenged the practical operation of Section 6(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005, arguing that illiterate citizens, visually impaired persons, persons with other disabilities, persons below the poverty line, and persons without internet access could not effectively exercise their right to information because the Act's machinery was not genuinely accessible to them. Although the petition initially framed the issue as a constitutional challenge under Article 14, at the hearing the petitioner's actual request narrowed to seeking a direction that the Union, States, and Union Territories set up effective machinery to help such persons access information under the Act. The Court sought the assistance of the Attorney General for India, who presented a chart addressing the specific objections raised.
Decision Breakdown
The Court chose not to rule on the constitutional validity of Section 6, treating that issue as unnecessary given how the relief sought had narrowed. After reviewing the existing framework, including requirements for proof of BPL status and the various modes of payment and access already provided, the Court found the Attorney General's explanation of the current arrangements satisfactory and held that no further specific direction was required. It granted the petitioner liberty to submit a representation to the competent authority identifying any additional modes needed to make information genuinely accessible, directing that any such representation be considered with sympathy, concern and empathy, and asking the authorities to explore newer accessible technology. The writ petition was disposed of on these terms with no order as to costs.
Lesson Learnt
Where existing government machinery already substantially addresses a stated grievance, the Supreme Court may decline to issue fresh directions and instead channel the citizen back to the competent administrative authority with a representation, but will underline that authorities must treat such representations from persons with disabilities with genuine empathy rather than bureaucratic indifference.