As a sequel to the 9 July 2025 Delhi High Court (HC) order, in which the court granted the five petitioners – all journalists – the liberty to approach the central information commission (CIC) directly to amplify their demands for public hearing for second appeals and complaints under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, a petition has been submitted last week.
In a strongly worded representation submitted to central information commissioner, Heeralal Samariya, the petitioners renewed their demand to immediately restore public and journalistic access to hearings of the CIC, in line with long-standing legal principles of transparency and openness.
The Court’s directive had stated that: “As far as prayer relating to direction to be issued to the Central Information Commission (CIC) to permit the entry of general public and journalists to the hearing rooms, physically, is concerned, we permit the petitioners to represent their cause to the Chief Information Commissioner, who shall take an appropriate decision in accordance with law and the rules applicable thereto, with expedition.”
The representation made to the CIC by the petitioners stated that “Security personnel screen members of the public at the reception. They direct only parties whose case is listed on a given day towards the waiting room on the ground floor. Staff at the waiting room then directs these parties to the concerned hearing room a few minutes before the scheduled time. The information commissioner’s registrar’s office marks attendance. Officials escort parties into the hearing room at the appropriate time and then escort them out of the room once the hearing concludes.
“In sum, the hearing room restricts entry solely to parties involved in the specific case and staff. Even litigants whose matters are listed for the day cannot view other matters, a practice that stands in stark contrast to courts and tribunals across the country. Most critically, the general public and journalists often cannot even pass the reception area. This operational reality directly contradicts the CIC’s own internal order.”
The petitioners again reminded the CIC that in its internal order of 23 September 2016, it had stressed that, “Ordinarily, the hearings of the cases before the Commission are open to general public.” However, in an RTI reply of 28 October 2024, the CIC had replied that “at present no such facility for public is available,” which amounted to not abiding by its own order.
The petitioners suggested the following for a comprehensive public hearing facility:
In our humble view, to fully operationalise the intent of the 2016 internal order, the following steps are essential:
- The commission must promptly issue a comprehensive public notice outlining a clear and simple procedure for the general public and journalists to gain physical access to all hearings. This notice must:
- Specify the precise hours during which public may entry (enter) for observation.
- Specify any acceptable identity documents for verification.
- Clarify that the public need not give any reasons for entry (other than for the purpose of observing hearings).
- The commission must conduct immediate and mandatory training for all registry officials and security personnel to ensure that public’s right to access hearings is not arbitrarily denied.
- The public notice, along with any relevant forms, must be prominently uploaded on the official CIC website.
Just to recall, the HC, during the hearing, also enquired from the CIC secretary who had appeared in-camera for the hearing, “as to why the CIC has not considered upgrading to a more accessible virtual platform such as Webex—similar to the one used by this Court and several High Courts across the country as these would go beyond the current limitation that virtual appearances be made only from NIC Studios located at district headquarters, and; offer far greater convenience to parties wishing to participate in CIC proceedings virtually.”
The representation, submitted by petitioners Saurav Das, Betwa Sharma, Vinita Deshmukh, Kunal Purohit and Mohit M Rao, recalls how one of them had earlier written to the CIC in July 2024 highlighting the lack of physical and virtual access to hearings—particularly for journalists and the public. Despite citing a binding Supreme Court precedent
(Kishan Chand Jain v. Union of India, 2023 INSC 915) that called for enabling hybrid hearings, the CIC failed to respond, prompting the petitioners to file the PIL. The previous story:
5 Journalists Filed PIL for Access to CIC Hearings for the Public; Delhi HC Directs CIC To Clear the Path
(Vinita Deshmukh is consulting editor of Moneylife. She is also the convener of the Pune Metro Jagruti Abhiyaan. She is the recipient of prestigious awards like the Statesman Award for Rural Reporting, which she won twice in 1998 and 2005 and the Chameli Devi Jain Award for outstanding media person for her investigation series on Dow Chemicals. She co-authored the book "To The Last Bullet - The Inspiring Story of A Braveheart - Ashok Kamte" with Vinita Kamte and is the author of "The Mighty Fall".)
with regards
CA Rakesh Kumar Gupta