KISHAN CHAND JAIN versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS

Citation: [2023] 14 S.C.R. 477 · Decided: 09-10-2023 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.B. PARDIWALA, MANOJ MISRA · Disposal: Disposed off

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 8 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

CASE DETAILS
KISHAN CHAND JAIN
v.
UNION OF INDIA & ORS
(Writ Petition (Civil) No. 360 of 2021)
OCTOBER 09, 2023
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, CJI, 
J. B. PARDIWALA AND MANOJ MISRA, JJ.]
HEADNOTES
Issue for consideration: The petitioner urges that the State Information 
Commissions should allow the option of virtual hearings along with physical 
hearings.
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 eff ective and effi  cient 
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:
[2023] 14 S.C.R. 477 : 2023 INSC 915
477
478 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2023] 14 S.C.R.
Held: The recent technological advancements in terms of video-
conferencing 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-eff ective and effi  cient 
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-fi ling 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 
479
eff ected on the Public Information Offi  cers 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, 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.