Constitution of India – Art. 21 – Access to justice: Held: Access to justice is a right of constitutional purport which signifies that individuals have effective means to approach legal institutions to seek appropriate legal remedies – The ability to access legal institutions empowers individuals to understand and exercise their legal and constitutional rights – Access to justice enhances the quality of human life and, therefore, is an important facet of right to life u/Art. 21. [Para 19] Constitution of India – Arts. 14, 21, 39A – Constitutional duty of the organs of the State to provide with means for access to justice: Held: Art. 39A of the Constitution recognizes the rights of citizens to equal justice and free legal aid – Reading Arts. 14, 21, and 39A harmoniously, it is evident that is the constitutional duty of the organs of the state to provide individuals with the means of access to justice in an effective and efficient manner – Particularly, it is duty of the Government to raise the standards of infrastructure by adopting technology to make institutional processes accessible and inclusive. [Para 20]
Information Technology – Technological advancements – Virtual Courts – Video-conferencing – Expansion of courtroom area beyond the walls of the courtroom:
Held: The recent technological advancements in terms of videoconferencing must be used to promote inclusion of people living in remote areas within the fold of the justice delivery mechanism – Physical courts require the litigants and parties living in remote areas to travel long distances to appear before the court – With increasing costs of travel and other related expenses, video-conferencing solutions provide a cost-effective and efficient alternative to the physical courts – Technology allows to create and use a “virtual courtroom” which is as real as any physical courtroom – In more than one-way, virtual courts democratize legal processes by expanding the courtroom area beyond the walls of the courtroom. [Para 21] Constitution of India – Constitutional duty of every adjudicatory institution to adopt technological solutions:
Held: It is a constitutional duty of every adjudicatory institution, may it be courts, tribunals, or commissions, to adopt technological solutions such as video-conferencing and make them available to litigants and the members of the Bar on a regular and consistent basis – The use of technology is no longer an option – Properly deployed for the purpose of conducting hybrid or virtual hearings, technology has the potential to ensure access to justice by obviating the need for citizens to travel long distances to secure the right of being heard. [Para 22]
Right to Information Act, 2005 – State Information Commissions directed to provide hybrid mode of hearing:
Held: Access to the Information Commissions is integral to securing the right to information, which is a necessary concomitant of right to equality u/Art. 14, the freedom of speech and expression u/Art. 19(1)(a) of the Constitution, and the right to life under Art. 21 – It was directed that all SICs across the country must provide hybrid modes of hearing to all litigants for the hearing of complaints as well as appeals – All SICs must provide an option for availing of a hybrid mode of hearing which shall be at the discretion of the applicant, or as the case may be, the appellant – The links for availing of the option must be stipulated in the daily cause list of the Information Commissions across the country – Apart from that, SICs directed to ensure that e-filing of complaints and appeals is provided in a streamlined manner to every litigant – Steps should also be taken having regard to the provisions of s.26 of the RTI Act to ensure that service is effected on the Public Information Officers through the electronic mode. [Paras 23, 24]
LIST OF CITATIONS AND OTHER REFERENCES
Chief Information Commissioner v. State of Manipur (2011) 15 SCC 1 : [2011] 13 SCR 505; Union of India v. Namit Sharma, (2013) 10 SCC 359 : [2013] 13 SCR 96; State of U.P. v. Raj Narain (1975) 4 SCC 428 : [1975]
3 SCR 333; S.P. Gupta v. Union of India 1981 Supp SCC 87 : [1982] SCR 365; Dinesh Trivedi v. Union of India (1997) 4 SCC 306 : [1997] 3 SCR 93; Secretary, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, Government of India v. Cricket Association of Bengal (1995) 2 SCC 161 : [1995] 1 SCR 1036; Reliance Petrochemicals Ltd v. Proprietors of Indian Express Newspapers, Bombay Pvt Ltd (1988) 4 SCC 592 : [1988] 3 Suppl. SCR 212; Anjali Bharadwaj v. Union of India (2019) 18 SCC 246, Kishan Chand Jain v. Union of India 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1021; Anita Kushwaha v. Pushap Sadan (2016) 8 SCC 509 : [2016] 9 SCR 560; Brij Mohan Lal v. Union of India (2012) 6 SCC 502 : [2012] 5 SCR 305; Swapnil Tripathi v. Supreme Court of India (2018) 10 SCC 639 : [2018] 11 SCR 57; M P High Court Bar v. Union of India, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 365 – referred to. OTHER CASE DETAILS INCLUDING IMPUGNED
ORDER AND APPEARANCES
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.