Holding

The existing provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005 and the 2012 Rules already provide assistance to visually impaired persons and fee exemption for BPL applicants, so no further direction is required; the petitioner may submit representations to the competent authority for additional modes of access.

Summary

Aseer Jamal filed a writ petition under Article 32 seeking directions to the Union, States and Union Territories to create an effective mechanism for illiterate and visually impaired persons to obtain information under the Right to Information Act, 2005. The petitioner argued that Section 6(1) of the Act discriminates against such persons and that the Act does not adequately address the needs of persons below the poverty line (BPL) and those without internet access. The Court examined the provisions of Section 6(1), which obliges public information officers to render reasonable assistance to persons unable to write, and noted that several states already provide information in Braille and audio formats. It also considered Rule 5 of the Right to Information Rules, 2012, which exempts BPL applicants from fees upon submission of a certificate and allows various modes of payment. The Court held that the existing statutory framework sufficiently addresses the concerns raised and that no further directive is necessary, but granted the petitioner liberty to make representations to the competent authority for any additional modes of access. Consequently, the petition was disposed of without any order as to costs.

Issues considered

Whether Section 6(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 discriminates against illiterate and visually impaired persons in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution.
Whether the Act and the 2012 Rules provide adequate fee exemption and payment mechanisms for persons below the poverty line.
Whether the Union and the States need to be directed to establish a new machinery for disabled persons to access information under the RTI Act.
Whether existing provisions such as assistance for oral requests and provision of information in Braille satisfy the petitioner's grievances.

Legislation cited

Right to Information Act, 2005s. 27, s. 2(j), s. 6(1), s. 6(3)
Right to Information Rules, 2012s. 5

Subjects

Right to InformationSection 6visually impairedilliterateBPLfee exemptionBrailledisabilityaccess to informationArticle 19Article 14

Judgment

1278 [2018] 13
SUPREME COURT S.C.R. 1278
REPORTS [2018] 13 S.C.R.

A ASEER JAMAL
v.
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
(Writ Petition (C) No. 137 of 2018)
SEPTEMBER 27, 2018
B [DIPAK MISRA, CJI., A. M. KAHNWILKAR AND
DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, JJ.]
Right to Information Act, 2005: s.6(1) – Case of petitioner is
that large number of illiterate persons and visually impaired persons
or persons afflicted by other kinds of disabilities are not in a position
C to get the information – Writ petitioner sought for direction to Union
of India, the States and the Union Territories to provide an effective
machinery for the enforcement of the fundamental right of illiterate
citizens to have access to information and to provide effective
machinery to visually impaired persons and such impaired persons
D who are unable to have access to the internet – Held: As far as the
grievance relating to visually impaired persons is concerned,
assistance has to be rendered under s.6(1) of the Act to the persons
who are unable to write or have difficulty in writing – Several States
provide information in Braille – In exercise of the powers conferred
by s.27 of the Act, the Central Government has framed a set of
E rules, namely, the Right to Information Rules, 2012 – r.5 takes care
of the plight of people who are below the poverty line – If an
applicant belongs to below poverty line (BPL) category, he/she
has to submit a proof in support of his/her claim that he/she belongs
to the said category and as far as the mode of payment is concerned,
F various modes are provided and the criticism that it is restricted is
unacceptable – In view of the obtaining situation, liberty is granted
to the petitioner to submit a representation to the competent authority
pointing out any other mode(s) available for getting information
under the Act – If such a representation is submitted, the same shall
be dealt not only with sympathy but also with concern and empathy
G – Differently abled persons, which include visually impaired persons,
should have the functional facility to receive such information as
permissible under the Act – They should not be deprived of the
benefit of such a utility – Additionally, authorities to explore any
kind of advanced technology that has developed in the meantime
so that other methods can be introduced – If the petitioner points
H
1278
ASEER JAMAL v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 1279

out, the cognizance of the same should be taken – Writ petition A
disposed of – Right to Information Rules, 2012 – r.5.
Disposing of the writ petition, the Court
HELD: As far as the grievance relating to visually impaired
persons is concerned, assistance has to be rendered under
Section 6(1) of the Act to the persons who are unable to write or B
have difficulty in writing. It is brought to notice that several States
provide information in Braille since the year 2012. Every time
the authority receives an RTI application seeking information in
Braille, it prepares a reply in the printed format and forward it to
the National Institute for the Visually Handicapped where it is C
converted to Braille. The visually impaired citizen of Bihar were
the first in the country to get copies under the Right to Information
(RTI) Act and the Rules made by the State Government for its
implementation in Braille script. Audio files are also being
prepared. [Para 10][1283-F-H]
2. In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 27 of the D
Act, the Central Government has framed a set of rules, namely,
the Right to Information Rules, 2012. Rule 5 takes care of the
light of people who are below the poverty line. If an applicant
belongs to below poverty line (BPL) category, he /she has to
submit a proof in support of his /her claim that he /she belongs to E
the said category and as far as the mode of payment is concerned,
various modes are provided and the criticism that it is restricted
is unacceptable. [Paras 12, 13][1284-B; 1285-C-D]
Secretary Ministry of Information & Broadcasting,
Government of India and Ors. v. Cricket Association of F
Bengal and Ors. (1995) 2 SCC 161 : [1995] 1 SCR
1036 ; People’s Union for Civil Liberties and Anr. v.
Union of India and Ors.(2004) 2 SCC 476 : [2004] 1
SCR 232 – referred to.
Case Law Reference
G
[1995] 1 SCR 1036 referred to Para 1
[2004] 1SCR 232 referred to Para 1
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition (Civil)
No. 598 of 2018.
(Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India) H
1280 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 13 S.C.R.

A K. K. Venugopal, AG, Ms. Pinky Anand, ASG, Mrs. Madhavi
Divan, Ms. Shraddha Deshmukh, Advs. for the Respondents.
Aseer Jamal (Petitioner-in-person).
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
DIPAK MISRA, CJI
B
1. Almost a century back, Nobel Laureate T.S. Eliot had
disenchantingly written, “Where is the wisdom we have lost in knowledge?
Where is the knowledge we have lost in information?” Though the content
of the statement cannot be said to have lost its fragrance or flavour, yet
today, information has become a strong sense of power. Right to
C information has been treated as a right to freedom of speech and
expression as contained in Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India.
The right to acquire and to disseminate information has been regarded
as an intrinsic component of freedom of speech and expression, as stated
in Secretary, Ministry of Information & Broadcasting, Government
D of India and others v. Cricket Association of Bengal and others. 1
and People’s Union for Civil Liberties and another v. Union of India
and others.2
2. Having stated about the right to information, we would advert
to the assertions made in the writ petition. It is set forth in the writ
petition that India, which is a vast country having large population, has
E
few millions of illiterate adults and certain States, as per the 2011 Census,
have more illiterates.
3. Referring to Section 6(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005
(for brevity, „the Act ), it is urged that the illiterate persons and the visually
impaired persons or persons afflicted by other kinds of disabilities are
F not in a position to get the information. It is contended that the provision
contained in Section 6 suffers from unreasonable classification between
visually impaired and visually abled persons and thereby invites the frown
of Article 14 of the Constitution. It is further contended that certain
provisions of the Act are not accessible to orthopaedically impaired
G persons, persons below the poverty line and persons who do not have
any access to the internet. Though in the petition, it has been asseverated
as regards the violation of Article 14 of the Constitution, yet the prayer is
couched in a different manner and we are obliged to say so because we
feel that there is no need or necessity to deal with the constitutional
1
(1995) 2 SCC 161
H 2
(2004) 2 SCC 476
ASEER JAMAL v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 1281
[DIPAK MISRA, CJI]

validity of Section 6 of the Act. In fact, it is further necessary to mention A
that in the course of hearing, the prayer was centered on getting the
reliefs, namely, to direct the Union of India, the States and the Union
Territories to provide an effective machinery for the enforcement of the
fundamental right to have access to information of illiterate citizens and
to provide effective machinery to visually impaired persons and such
B
impaired persons who are unable to have access to the internet. That
being the fact situation, we sought the assistance of Mr. K.K. Venugopal,
learned Attorney General for India in the matter.
4. We have heard Mr. Aseer Jamal, the petitioner, who has
appeared in-person and Mr. K.K. Venugopal, learned Attorney General
for India. Though the chart prepared by Mr. Venugopal indicates the C
objections and the response, yet we intend to deal with it in a holistic
manner.
5. The Statement of Objects and Reasons of the Act reads as
follows:-
“An Act to provide for setting out the practical regime of right to D
information for citizens to secure access to information under the
control of public authorities, in order to promote transparency and
accountability in the working of every public authority, the
constitution of a Central Information Commission and State
Information Commissions and for matters connected therewith E
or incidental thereto.
WHEREAS the Constitution of India has established
democratic Republic;
AND WHEREAS democracy requires an informed
citizenry and transparency of information which are vital to its F
functioning and also to contain corruption and to hold Governments
and their instrumentalities accountable to the governed;
AND WHEREAS revelation of information in actual
practice is likely to conflict with other public interests including
efficient operations of the Governments, optimum use of limited G
fiscal resources and the preservation of confidentiality of sensitive
information;
AND WHEREAS it is necessary to harmonise these
conflicting interests while preserving the paramountcy of the
democratic ideal;
H
1282 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 13 S.C.R.

A Now THEREFORE, it is expedient to provide for furnishing
certain information to citizens who desire to have it.”
6. Section 2(j) of the Act deals with “right to information”, which
reads thus:-
“(j) “right to information” means the right to information accessible
B under this Act which is held by or under the control of any public
authority and includes the right to-
(i) inspection of work, documents, records;
(ii) taking notes, extracts or certified copies of documents or
records;
C (iii) taking certified samples of material;
(iv) obtaining information in the form of diskettes, floppies, tapes,
video cassettes or in any other electronic mode or through
printouts where such information is stored in a computer or in
any other device”
D 7. Section 6 of the Act that deals with „request for obtaining
information stipulates as under :-
“6. Request for obtaining information.— (1) A person, who
desires to obtain any information under this Act, shall make a
request in writing or through electronic means in English or Hindi
E or in the official language of the area in which the application is
being made, accompanying such fee as may be prescribed, to—
(a) the Central Public Information Officer or State Public
Information Officer, as the case may be, of the concerned public
authority;
F (b) the Central Assistant Public Information Officer or State
Assistant Public Information Officer, as the case may be,
specifying the particulars of the information sought by him or her:
Provided that where such request cannot be made in writing, the
Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information
Officer, as the case may be, shall render all reasonable assistance
G
to the person making the request orally to reduce the same in
writing.
(2) An applicant making request for information shall not be
required to give any reason for requesting the information or any
other personal details except those that may be necessary for
H contacting him.
ASEER JAMAL v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 1283
[DIPAK MISRA, CJI]

(3) Where an application is made to a public authority requesting A
for an information,—
(i) which is held by another public authority; or
(ii) the subject matter of which is more closely connected with
the functions of another public authority,
the public authority, to which such application is made. shall transfer B
the application or such part of it as may be appropriate to that
other public authority and inform the applicant immediately about
such transfer:
Provided that the tiansfer of an application pursuant to this sub-
section shall be made as soon as practicable but in no case later C
than five days from the date of receipt of the application.”
8. Mr. Venugopal, learned Attorney General, has emphasized the
proviso to Section 6(1) to highlight that it is obligatory on the part of the
Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer
to render all reasonable assistance to the persons making the request D
orally to reduce the same in writing. As we understand from the said
proviso, it will be the duty of the officer to listen to the persons and to
reduce it in writing and process the same.
9. Section 6(3) of the Act takes care of the apprehension of the
persons for whose cause the petitioner espouses, by making the provision
E
pertaining to appropriate competent public authority. On a careful reading
of the same, we do not find that there can be any difficulty for any
person to find out the public authority as there is a provision for transfer.
10. As far as the grievance relating to visually impaired persons is
concerned, as stated earlier, assistance has to be rendered under Section
6(1) of the Act to the persons who are unable to write or have difficulty F
in writing. Mr. K.K. Venugopal has brought to our notice that several
States provide information in Braille since the year 2012. Every time the
authority receives an RTI application seeking information in Braille, it
prepares a reply in the printed format and forwards it to the National
Institute for the Visually Handicapped where it is converted to Braille.
G
The visually impaired citizens of Bihar were the first in the country to
get copies under the Right to Information (RTI) Act and the Rules made
by the State Government for its implementation in Braille script. Audio
files are also being prepared.
11. From the chart filed by Mr. Venugopal, it is vivid that several
hotline numbers providing toll free access to information are available H
1284 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 13 S.C.R.

A on the RTI website. Furthermore, a help desk is also available for any
query or feedback related to the portal. The contact number is
011-24622461.
12. The next thing that requires to be emphasized upon is the
plight of the people who are below the poverty line. It is useful to mention
B that in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 27 of the Act, the
Central Government has framed a set of rules, namely, the Right to
Information Rules, 2012. Rules 3, 4, 5 and 6 of the said Rules read as
follows:-
“3. Application Fee.—An application under sub- section (1) of
C Section 6 of the Act shall be accompanied by a fee of rupees ten
and shall ordinarily not contain more than five hundred words,
excluding annexures, containing address of the Central Public
Information Officer and that of the applicant:
Provided that no application shall be rejected only on the
ground that it contains more than five hundred words.
D
4. Fees for providing information.— Fee for providing
information under sub-section (4) of Section 4 and sub-sections
(I) and (5) of Section 7 of the Act shall be charged at the following
rates, namely :—
(a) rupees two for each page in A-3 or smaller size paper;
E
(b) actual cost or price of a photocopy in large size paper;
(c) actual cost or price for samples or models;
(d) rupees fifty per diskette or floppy;
(e) price fixed for a publication or rupees two per page of
F photocopy for extracts from the publication;
(f) no fee for inspection of records for the first hour of inspection
and a fee of rupees 5 for each subsequent hour or fraction
thereof; and
(g) so much of postal charge involved in supply of information
G that exceeds fifty rupees.
5. Exemption from Payment of Fee.— No fee under rule 3
and rule 4 shall be charged from any person who, is below poverty
line provided a copy of the certificate issued by the appropriate
Government in this regard is submitted alongwith the application.
H
ASEER JAMAL v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 1285
[DIPAK MISRA, CJI]

6. Mode of Payment of fee.— Fees under these rules may be A
paid in any of the following manner, namely:—
(a) in cash, to the public authority or to the Central Assistant
Public Information Officer of the public authority, as the case
may be, against a proper receipt; or
(b) by demand draft or bankers cheque or Indian Postal Order B
payable to the Accounts Officer of the public authority; or
(c) by electronic means to the Accounts Officer of the public
authority, if facility for receiving fees through electronic means
is available with the public authority.”
13. Rule 5 takes care of the situation that has been highlighted by C
the petitioner. If an applicant belongs to below poverty line (BPL)
category, he/she has to submit a proof in support of his/her claim that he/
she belongs to the said category and as far as the mode of payment is
concerned, various modes are provided and the criticism that it is restricted
is unacceptable. D
14. In view of the obtaining situation, as has been brought out by
the learned Attorney General for India, as presently advised, we are
disposed to think that no further direction needs to be issued except
granting liberty to the petitioner to submit a representation to the competent
authority pointing out any other mode(s) available for getting information
E
under the Act. If such a representation is submitted, the same shall be
dealt not only with sympathy but also with concern and empathy. We
say so as differently abled persons, which include visually impaired
persons, should have the functional facility to receive such information
as permissible under the Act. They should not be deprived of the benefit
of such a utility. As indicated in the beginning, the information makes F
one empowered. Additionally, we think it appropriate to ask the authorities
to explore any kind of advanced technology that has developed in the
meantime so that other methods can be introduced. We are absolutely
sure that if the petitioner would point out, the cognizance of the same
shall be taken. We are also certain that the authority shall, with all
G
sincerity and concern, explore further possibilities with the available on-
line application/mechanism.
15. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of. There shall be
no order as to costs.
Devika Gujral Petition diposed of. H