HC issues notice to Punjab Govt over failure to implement hybrid hearings in State Information Commission
The PIL, filed by 24-year-old RTI activist and advocate Nikhil Thamman, challenged the Commission's failure to provide virtual hearing options and related digital infrastructure as required under the apex court's 2023 ruling in Kishan Chand Jain v Union of India.
Appearing in person, Thamman argued that the Commission's continued reliance on physical hearings effectively deprived citizens, especially those from remote and rural areas, of access to quasi-judicial proceedings under the Right to Information Act, 2005.
The petitioner submitted that despite the Supreme Court's clear directions requiring all State Information Commissions to offer hybrid hearing options and include virtual hearing links in daily cause lists by December 31, 2023, Punjab had failed to implement even the most basic requirements.
Citing a legal notice he had served on June 28, 2025, to the Punjab Government and the State Information Commission, Thamman stated that no corrective steps had been taken despite warnings of potential contempt proceedings. Thamman further pointed out that the commission had failed to establish an e-filing mechanism and electronic service of RTI documents — provisions that were central to both the Supreme Court's directives and the RTI Act's emphasis on accessibility and time-bound redressal.
Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Sanjiv Berry, before whom the matter was listed, issued notice to the State and posted the case for further hearing on September 15.
The PIL, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, raised two principal questions: whether the court should issue a writ of mandamus directing the Punjab State Information Commission to implement hybrid hearings across all proceedings, and whether virtual links should be mandatorily included in daily cause lists to ensure citizen participation through video conferencing.
Thamman submitted that video conferencing facilities installed in District Administrative Complexes across Punjab remained largely non-functional, thereby defeating the purpose of decentralised justice. He contended that the commission's inaction amounted to a violation not only of the RTI Act but also of citizens' fundamental rights under Articles 14, 19(1)(a), and 21 of the Constitution.
The PIL also drew attention to the real-life hardships imposed by the current system: many citizens from distant districts had to travel to Chandigarh merely to mark attendance or appear for brief hearings, often at considerable financial and logistical cost. In contrast, Thamman maintained that the widespread availability of smartphones and video conferencing applications made hybrid hearings both feasible and necessary.
Thamman, a resident of Banur in SAS Nagar district, sought comprehensive relief from the High Court, including the implementation of hybrid hearings, inclusion of virtual hearing links in all cause lists, establishment of operational e-filing and e-service mechanisms, and any other directions the court deemed appropriate to secure effective enforcement of the RTI Act in Punjab.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
NDTV
17 minutes ago
- NDTV
Kerala Nuns Get Bail In Human Trafficking, Religious Conversion Case In Chhattisgarh
A special NIA court in Chhattisgarh has granted conditional bail to two Kerala nuns and a male companion who were arrested last week on charges of human trafficking and forced religious conversion. Principal District and Sessions Judge Sirajuddin Qureshi granted bail to Sisters Preethi Merry and Vandana Francis of the Assisi Sisters of Mary Immaculate (ASMI), and Sukaman Mandavi, a tribal youth from the state. CPM leader Brinda Karat told NDTV this is a big victory for tribals and adivasi groups that had countered the allegations. She demanded action against Bajrang Dal and Hindu Vahini for filing false complaints. CPIM MP John Brittas said, "It is a victory of the Constitution. It was a false case against two nuns. Our fight will continue to get the FIR quashed." The three of them were arrested on July 25 at the Durg railway station after a complaint by a local Bajrang Dal functionary alleged they were attempting to traffic and convert three tribal girls. The defense lawyer for the nuns, Amrito Das, had argued that the FIR was "absolutely baseless," and noted that the parents of the girls had given statements affirming that their daughters had been practicing Christianity for several years. So there was no question of forced conversion and also that they were adults being taken for work to Agra and they had said they were going voluntarily, so there was no human trafficking. The bail was granted under several conditions. The accused must surrender their passports and furnish a bond of Rs 50,000 each, with two persons acting as sureties. This development comes after a sessions court in Durg had earlier disposed of their bail applications, citing a lack of jurisdiction under the human trafficking section of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), and directing them to approach the designated NIA court in Bilaspur. The arrest had triggered widespread protests in Kerala and drew sharp criticism from Church leaders and political parties, including the ruling LDF and the Opposition. The case had also created a rift between the BJP units in Kerala and Chhattisgarh, with Kerala BJP chief Rajeev Chandrasekhar stating that the arrests were a "misunderstanding" and that the Chhattisgarh government would not oppose their bail. The defense lawyer for the nuns, Amrito Das, had argued that the FIR was "absolutely baseless," and noted that the parents of the girls had given statements affirming that their daughters had been practicing Christianity for several years.
Time of India
17 minutes ago
- Time of India
'Mai Raja Nahi Hoon': Rahul Gandhi Responds To Congress Workers' Slogans At Legal Conclave
/ Aug 02, 2025, 02:06PM IST At the Congress party's Annual Legal Conclave 2025 in Delhi, Leader of Opposition and Congress MP Rahul Gandhi firmly distanced himself from 'hero worship,' rejecting chants from supporters calling him 'Desh ka Raja.' When the slogan 'Desh ka Raja kaisa ho? Rahul Gandhi jaisa ho' echoed during his speech, Gandhi responded that he opposes the very concept of kingship and sees himself as a representative, not a ruler. The conclave focused on constitutional challenges facing India, with Congress reiterating its stance that the BJP is undermining democratic institutions and the Constitution.#rahulgandhi #congresslegalconclave2025 #constitutionalchallenges #indianpolitics #bjp #congress #deshkaraja #democracyinindia #congressparty #vigyanbhawan #elections2025 #toi #toibharat
Indian Express
an hour ago
- Indian Express
Karnataka HC quashes gag order on online media channel over Dharmasthala case reports
The Karnataka High Court on Friday quashed a gag order on Mangaluru-based online media channel Kudla Rampage related to its reports on the Dharmasthala 'secret burials' case. 'The concerned court, at the threshold and without the benefit of adversarial hearing, has ventured to grant a sweeping mandatory injunction, a relief which ordinarily ought to await the culmination of the trial,' Justice M Nagaprasanna said, remanding the matter to the lower court to be heard afresh. The court also came down strongly on some of the reasoning in the gag order. 'The impugned order though spanning multiple pages, conspicuously lacks the foundational reason……the order may span pages, but spanning pages has not depicted application of mind. It is application of mind that is required, in a reasoned order, and not application of ink,' Justice Nagaprasanna added. The Additional City Civil and Sessions Court in Bengaluru had on July 18 granted an ex parte injunction to delete 8,812 links related to the Dharmasthala burials case. The injunction was based on a petition filed by Harshendra Kumar D, brother of BJP MP D Veerendra Heggade and secretary of the Shri Dharmasthala Manjunatheshwara Educational Society. The channel's counsel, A Velan, had argued that an injunction, which was doubtful at the closing stages of the case, had been granted in the interlocutory stage itself, and said that this was violative of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC). Arguing that it was a case of restraint on freedom of speech, he further pointed out that there was no reasoning behind passing a 'John Doe' order in this case. John Doe orders are orders where a defendant is unknown. Velan also asserted that the order, in a matter of public importance, was creating a perpetual gag order on future speakers. Representing Harshendra Kumar, senior advocate Udaya Holla argued that the petition by Kudla Rampage was not permissible under Article 227 of the Constitution, as the petitioner had not availed the remedy under the CPC to vacate the order. He also stated that the high court had twice directed the channel to be banned, stating that in a case which was being investigated, it was producing defamatory content projecting Kumar to be guilty and creating defamatory content. The bench stated that the injunction at this stage had the character of a final order, explaining, 'The impugned order…while ostensibly couched as an interim measure, in truth and effect, partakes the character of a final determination.' The bench also pointed out multiple Supreme Court precedents with regard to the type of reasoning required for passing an ex parte order or interim injunction in such cases. The court also clarified that 'John Doe' or 'Ashok Kumar orders', as they are known in India, ought to be granted only with great caution, observing that the current order was wide enough that any voice against Kumar, his family or the location of the incident would be caught in it. The court added, 'The order speaks of prohibition of defamatory statements. Not one word of what kind of statements are defamatory for the Court to pass the aforequoted order is found in the order.' The court then quashed the ex parte order as far as it pertains to Kudla Rampage.
