1.

BACKGROUND
1. Activities involving verbal communication not only assume an exchange of information,
but essentially subsume developing human intelligence, socialization and other factors so
as to make human beings civilized. A person developing with low Intelligent Quotient,
inadequate emotion or abnormal behaviour may ultimately result in havoc in the society
since the person will be treated as a burden to the community. He can just not be
expected to live independently and thus his conscience will be difficult to reach normal
human achievement.1 Therefore, it has to be admitted that people with physical and
mental impairments have to face a lot of challenges in the modern society.2 A person with
no vision tends to be more efficient because of his sharper brain than average human
minds, scientific studies say. But how far are they been treated equally in society is a big
question.
2. Visually impaired people are often denied many opportunities, rights etc. because of the
existence of their so called abnormality amongst the society members. It so turns out that
one of the most prominent features of the Indian society today is not brotherhood or
fraternity, according to the Preamble; but is discrimination amongst the members of the
society. The Preamble to the Constitution of India lays down a strong emphasis on
justice, equality, liberty etc. but we as people of India, are failing to comply with the said
vision which is an alarming topic to be brought in front of the nation today.
3. An illiterate person is seen no different in this context. He is certainly seen as an
undeserving candidate in the society and although he is not visually impaired and does
not lie within the ambit of specially abled, he still continues to be short of opportunities,
rights thereon. It cannot be humbly accepted that those who are free from every sort of
abnormalities and are cent per cent educated can only be considered as the ‘Karta’ of the
society. It cannot be a one man show.
4. The Constitution of India, provides for Right to equality under Article 143 and various
freedoms have been provided under Article 19 to every citizen of the country,

1
J. Suzuki, et al. (eds.),HEARING IMPAIRMENT AN INVISIBLE DISABILITY HOW YOU CAN LIVE WITH
A HEARING IMPAIRMENT, 1st ed. 2004,p.14.
2
See Interrogating Disability in India: Theory and Practice, Springer India
3
Article 14, The Constitution of India, ‘Equality before Law: Equality before law The State shall not deny to any
person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India Prohibition of
discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth.’

1
 disregarding every aforementioned feature. In furtherance to freedom provided under
Article 19 right to information has become a strong sense of power and is now treated as
a right to freedom of speech and expression a contained in Article 19(1)(a) of the
Constitution of India.4 The Supreme Court has held that Right to impart and receive
information also falls within the ambit of Article 19. It is considered so that there is an
expected transparency in governmental functions and also so that the people of India are
not deceived on certain grounds. It tantamount to have a perceived notion that
transparency, openness and accountability in public administration is expected by the
government officials.5 Thus, every citizen has a right to information under the control of
public authorities. No democratic government can survive without accountability and the
basic postulate of accountability is that the people should have information about the
functioning of their Government.6
2. FACTS OF THE CASE
5. The petitioner herein, Mr. Aseer Jamal had approached the Supreme Court of India
contending for access to information for the visually impaired, illiterate or any other
kinds of disabled. It was so contended that such people are not provided with the
information and are often denied for the same. Right to disseminate information
(telecasting, to be precise) has been regarded as an intrinsic component of freedom of
speech and expression, as stated in Secretary, Ministry of Information & Broadcasting,
Government of India and others v. Cricket Association of Bengal and others.7 In this
case, it was argued that freedom of speech and expression is of paramount importance for
it is a means of free conscience and self-fulfilment. It is the only vehicle of political
discourse so essential to democracy. The right to communicate, therefore, includes right
to communicate through media that is available (whether print or electronic) or any other
way of communication that may be possible to reach the person, who so asks for.8
6. Another argument in this case was regarding the monopoly of certain bodies over the
information broadcasted. Broadcasting is a means of communication, and henceforth is

4
Aseer Jamal v. UOI & Ors., (2018) 10 SCC 437
5
Dr. Ajay Kumar Jain, Associate Professor, Deptt. of Law, D.S College, Aligarh, (2011) PL February S-35, THE
RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT, 2005- USE & MISUSE.
6
Ibid
7
(1995) 2 SCC 161
8
Ibid

2
 covered under the umbrella of freedom of speech and expression9. No governmental or
non- governmental, influential or non- influential, can exercise its exclusive control over
it. The information is for all, to be disseminated upon.
7. However, the monopoly in broadcasting and telecasting is often claimed by the
Government to utilise the public resources in the form of the limited frequencies
available for the benefit of the society at large. It is justified by the Government to
prevent the concentration of the frequencies in the hands of the rich few who can
monopolise the dissemination of views and information to suit their interests and thus in
fact to control and manipulate public opinion in effect smothering the right to freedom of
speech and expression and freedom of information of others. The claim to monopoly
made on this ground may, however, lose all its raison d'être if either any section of the
society is unreasonably denied an access to broadcasting or the governmental agency
claims exclusive right to prepare and relay programmes.10
8. It was therefore held that, if the right which is claimed by the petitioners is to be
sanctioned, then each and every citizen shall claim the same which shall lead to
catastrophic scenario for the security of the nation.
9. In another case termed as an important precedent in this case was People’s Union for
Civil Liberties and Anr. v. Union of India & Ors.11 In this case, it was submitted before
the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India that in order to interpret the true meaning of Article
19(1) of the Constitution of India, right to information to a voter has to be considered as
an emphatic and integral part of the aforementioned. It was thereby held that it is
necessarily the right of voter to have the pre requisite knowledge of candidate’s
qualifications, this right can also certainly be entertained with respect to certain
limitations only found under Article 19(2) of the Constitution.12 To enquire and know

9
Article 19, The Constitution of India, ‘Protection of certain rights regarding freedom of speech, etc.’
10
(1995) 2 SCC 161
11
(2004) 2 SCC 476
12
Article 19(2), The Constitution of India, ‘Protection of certain rights regarding freedom of speech, etc.: Nothing in
sub clause (a) of clause (1) shall affect the operation of any existing law, or prevent the State from making any law,
in so far as such law imposes reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the right conferred by the said sub clause in
the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States,
public order, decency or morality or in relation to contempt of court, defamation or incitement to an offence.’

3
 about the relevant and authentic qualifications of a candidate is a fundamental right of
every voter.
10. The most striking feature of the judgement in this case in this regard was that this right
was considered to be independent from any other statutory rights and in addition to the
same, whenever a statutory provision violated a fundamental right; such provision had to
be struck down.13 Apart from this, the court also emphasized to support this statement by
stating that right to privacy is not absolute and a person having assets or income is
normally required to disclose the same under the Income Tax Act or any such similar
fiscal legislation. This case, thus added to the cause of this case as a precedent by
emphasizing on the importance of Right to Information.14
11. Based on the above case laws, it was tantamount to consider the case with utmost
sincerity. The arguments contended by learned Attorney General Of India, Mr. K. K.
Venugopal proved to be a guiding factor in determining the status quo in this regard.15
2.1 COURT AND JURISDICTION
12. Having stated about the right to Information, this matter was adverted to the assertions
made in form of a writ petition challenging the validity of provisions contained in Article
19(1)(a) of the constitution of India. The matter was reported before the Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India as a civil original jurisdiction. The writ petition, so submitted
was a civil appeal that mandamus was issued to the public authorities thereon. Advocates
who appeared in this case were Mr. K. K. Venugopal, Attorney General, Ms. Pinky
Anand, Additional Solicitor General Ms. Madhavi Divan and Ms. Shraddha
Deshmukh, Advaocates for the Respondents; and Mr. Aseer Jamal appeared before the
court as petitioner-in-person.
13. Nonetheless, the constitutional bench in this case comprised of Justice A. M.
Khanwilkar, Justice Dr. D. Y. Chandrachud and the then CJI of India, Justice Dipak
Mishra.

13
https://www.right2info.org/cases/r2i-union-for-civil-liberties-pucl-and-another-v.-union-of-india-and-another
14
Ibid
15
Supra note 2

4
 3. ISSUES BEFORE THE COURT
I. Whether Article 19(1)(a) has a broader perspective and henceforth right and access to
information can be treated as a right to freedom of speech and expression?
II. Whether Section 6 of Right to Information Act, 2005 suffers from unreasonable
classification between visually impaired and visually abled persons and thereby
invites frown of Article 14 of the Constitution of India?
III. Whether under such circumstances, it has become important to determine the
constitutional validity of Section 6 of RTI Act, 2005?
4. ARGUMENTS RAISED
14. “Through the chart prepared by Mr. Venugopal indicates the objections and the response,
yet we intend to deal with it in a holistic manner.”16quoted by Justice Dipak Mishra while
delivering the judgement. On the submission by petitioner-in-person that Right to
Information Act, 2005 is discriminatory towards a special class of people, namely the
visually impaired, illiterates etc. and therefore they are not in a position to get the
information since the information so provided under the said Act is provided to the
concerned person in a certain format, thereby leaving behind the abovementioned
category people with no access to such information was challenged by the learned
Attorney General of India, Mr K. K. Venugopal.
15. Section 6 of the Right to Information Act, 2005, provides that 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 or in the official language of the area, to the PIO,
specifying the particulars of the information sought by him or her. The information shall
be provided to the applicant on payment of such fee (if not belonging to the below
poverty line category) as may be prescribed. The applicant shall not be required to give
reasons for requesting the information or any other personal details except those that may
be necessary for contacting him.
16. The PIO, on receipt of a request under Section 6, shall provide the required
information within 30 days of the receipt of the request and where, the information

16
Supra

5
 sought for concerns the life or liberty of a person, the same shall be provided within 48
hours of the receipt of the request.17

4.1 WHAT DOES INFORMATION MEAN?

17. Section 2(f) of the Right to Information Act, 2005, provides that: ‘information’ means
any material in any form including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions,
advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples,
models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private
body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being
in force;18

4.2 WHO IS PUBLIC AUTHORITY?

18. The RTI Act, 2005, Section 2(h), provides that:

“public authority” means any authority or body or institution of self-government established

or constituted19-

(a) by or under the Constitution20;

(b) by any other law made by Parliament;21

(c) by any other law made by State Legislature;22

(d) by notification issued or order made by the appropriate Government, and includes
any-

(i) body owned, controlled or substantially financed;23

(ii) non-Government organisation substantially financed, directly or indirectly by

funds provided by the appropriate Government;24

17
Supra note 3
18
Right to Information Act, 2005
19
Ibid
20
Ibid
21
Ibid
22
Ibids
23
Ibid
24
Ibid

6
4.3 POWERS AND FUNCTIONS OF THE CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION/ STATE
INFORMATION COMMISSION

19. The Central Information Commission/State Information Commission has a duty to

receive and inquire into a complaint from any person-

(a) who has been unable to submit a request for information because no PIO has been
appointed under the Act;

(b) who has been refused access to any information requested under the Act;

(c) who has not been given a response to his/her request for information within the time-
limits specified under the Act;

(d) who has been required to pay an amount of fee which he/she considers unreasonable;

(e) who believes that he/she has been given incomplete, misleading or false
imformation under the Act; and

(f) in respect of any other matter relating to requesting or obtaining access to records under
the Act.

20. The Central Information Commission/State Information Commission has the powers of a
civil court in respect of the following matters, namely:

(a) summoning and enforcing the attendance of persons and compel them to give oral or
written evidence on oath and to produce the documents or things;

(b) requiring the discovery and inspection of documents;

(c) receiving evidence on affidavit;

(d) requisitioning any public record or copies thereof from any court or office;

(e) issuing summons for examination of witnesses or documents; and

(f) any other matter which may be prescribed.

21. The Central Information Commission/State Information Commission has the power to
require the public authority to take such steps as may be necessary to secure compliance
of the provisions of the Act, including—

7
 (a) providing access to information a particular form;

(b) appointing a PIO where none exists;

(c) publishing certain information or categories of information;

(d) making necessary changes to its practices in relation to the maintenance, management and
destruction of records;

(e) enhancing the provision of training on the right to information for its officials;

(f) requiring it to provide an annual report in compliance with Section 4(1)(b) of the Act;

(g) requiring it to compensate the complainant for any loss or other detriment suffered;

(h) imposing any of the penalties provided under the Act;

(i) rejecting the application.

22. The relationship between freedom of expression and the right to information is more than
purely theoretical. The ability of individuals, interest groups and organizations to actively
participate in political debates deciding issues on the public agenda, is tightly linked to
their ability to obtain such information.25 The public administration is meant to serve the
public, its citizens and its residents. The public’s right to oversee those who serve it
resembles the right of beneficiaries to monitor their trustees. In the public sphere, such a
review may indicate that officials have invested innocently, but unwisely, even while
bearing the public good in their sights; they may nevertheless be required to pay the
consequences. The public is entitled to demand an account of its trustees’ actions and the
execution of their judgment.26

23. 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 in writing.27

24. Locus Standi of Mr. K. K. Venugopal was that several states already have the provision
of providing information in Braille since the year 2012. Every RTI application received

25
Peled, Roy; Rabin, Yoram, THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO INFORMATION, Pg 373
26
Ibid
27
Supra note 2

8
 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. The
visually impaired citizens of Bihar were the first in the country to get copies under 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. Also, several
hotline numbers provide toll free access to information and such numbers are easily
available 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. When talking about
the plight of people who are below the poverty line, there are a set of rules provided
under Section 27 of the Act by the Central Government, namely, the Right to Information
Rules, 2012.28

5. JUDGMENT

25. “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.”

26. The Supreme Court on September 27, 2018 disposed of a writ petition challenging
Section 6 of the Right to Information Act for its ‘discrimination’ against the illiterate
persons, the visually impaired persons or persons afflicted by other kinds of disabilities.29

27. The bench comprising CJI Dipak Misra and Justices AM Khanwilkar and DY
Chandrachud directed petitioner Aseer Jamal to submit a representation to the competent
authority pointing out any other mode(s) available for getting information under the RTI
Act.30

28. Aseer Jamal had approached the Apex court contending that Section 6 of the RTI Act
suffers from unreasonable classification between visually-impaired and visually-abled
persons and thereby invites the frown of Article 14 of the Constitution. It was further

28
Supra
29
https://www.livelaw.in/differently-abled-visually-impaired-persons-not-to-be-deprived-of-benefits-of-rti-act-sc-
asks-authorities-to-explore-technology-to-make-information-accessible-to-them-read-judgment/
30
Ibid

9
 contended that certain provisions of the Act are not accessible to orthopedically-impaired
persons, persons below the poverty line and persons who do not have any access to the
Internet.31

29. Refusing to examine constitutionality of the provision, the bench recorded the
Attorney General’s submission 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 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, the bench said. The AG also told the
court that that several states provide information in Braille since the year 2012 and
several hotline numbers providing toll-free access to information are available on the RTI
website.32

30. The bench then ordered: “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
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 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 sincerity
and concern, explore further possibilities with the available on-line
application/mechanism.”33

31
Ibid
32
Ibid
33
Supra note 2

10
BIBLIOGRAPHY

 ARTICLES REFERRED:

1. Peled, Roy; Rabin, Yoram, THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO INFORMATION.

2. Dr. Ajay Kumar Jain, Associate Professor, Deptt. of Law, D.S College, Aligarh, (2011)
PL February S-35, THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT, 2005- USE & MISUSE.
3. Suzuki, et al. (eds.),HEARING IMPAIRMENT AN INVISIBLE DISABILITY HOW
YOU CAN LIVE WITH A HEARING IMPAIRMENT, 1st ed. 2004.

 BOOKS REFERRED:

1. Bare Act, THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, Professional’s Publications, 2019

2. Bare Act, RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT, 2005, Professional’s Publiactions, 2018
3. Nandini Ghosh, SEE INTERROGATING DISABILITY IN INDIA: THEORY AND
PRACTICE, SPRINGER INDIA, Edited by Ghosh, Nandini (Ed.)

 WEBLIOGRAPHY:

1. https://www.livelaw.in/differently-abled-visually-impaired-persons-not-to-be-deprived-
of-benefits-of-rti-act-sc-asks-authorities-to-explore-technology-to-make-information-
accessible-to-them-read-judgment/
2. https://www.right2info.org/cases/r2i-union-for-civil-liberties-pucl-and-another-v.-union-
of-india-and-another
3. https://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?collection=journals&handle=hein.journals/colhr42&id=
370&men_tab=srchresults
4. https://www.business-standard.com>Current Affairs>News
5. https://www.supremecourtofindia.nic.in/.../4982_2018_Judgement_27-Sep-2018.pdf
6. https://www.casemine.com/search/in?q=cricket+association+of+bengal
7. https://lawnn.com>Case Study

11