SC seeks Centre response on hybrid hearing in CIC, land acquisition cases

The Supreme Court has sought the response of the Centre and states on providing hybrid hearings in the Central Information Commission (CIC) and the authority hearing pleas for compensation in land acquisition matters on separate public interest litigations (PILs) pointing out the lack of such facility as a reason for case pendency in these forums.
In an order passed on Monday, made public on Tuesday, a bench headed by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud issued notice on the two petitions filed by advocate Kishan Chand Jain who underlined the need to provide speedy and effective justice to litigants by the integration of technology.
Jain said that that the CIC, which has a nationwide jurisdiction, has to deal with appeals filed under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, which provides the backbone for transparency in matters of governance and decision-making. Instead of providing virtual hearing links to litigants and lawyers, the CIC conducts online hearing through the National information Commission (NIC) studios, which are designated spaces, often located in government offices or district headquarters.
This practice requires appellants to travel to NIC studios, causing inconvenience, time loss, and additional expenses, besides having to wait at these studios for their hearings.
Also Read:SC seeks Centre’s reply on proportional representation for women in bar councils
“The CIC must evolve its practices to be more efficient and user-friendly, in line with modern technological advancements. Shifting to a more accessible system of hybrid hearings would represent a significant and much-needed reform in the RTI regime,” the petition said.
The CIC faces a huge backlog of second appeals and complaints.
According to information provided 0by the Centre in Parliament in July last year, the pendency of cases in CIC was a little over 19,200. In the past years, it was significantly high scaling up to 38,116 in 2020-21 and over 29,200 in 2021-22.
In his other petition highlighting the need for virtual hearing in the land acquisition authorities dealing with compensation, rehabilitation and resettlement claims, Jain who appeared in person, informed the court that the authority known as the Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation, and Resettlement Authorities (LARRAs), set up across the country for the purpose of providing speedy disposal of such claims are facing inordinate delays in disposal of cases.
The same bench, also comprising justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, issued notice on the second petition as well seeking response from Centre and states.
Jain pointed out that in October 2023, the top court issued orders in Sarvesh Mathur v Registrar General of Punjab & Haryana high court asking all high courts and tribunals to have hybrid hearing which permits litigants to appear physically and virtually. It also talked about providing virtual links for the hearing on the list of cases published for the day.
Jain cited the example of Uttar Pradesh which has 13 land acquisition rehabilitation and resettlement authorities (LARRAs) for 75 districts. The pendency in these authorities has spiraled from 879 in the year 2020 to 10,468 as on December 31, 2023. Even in a big state like Rajasthan, only one LARRA is provided for the entire state.
The LARRAs envisaged under Section 51 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 envisaged fair, just, and equitable treatment for landowners whose lands are compulsorily acquired.
As most landowners belong to marginalized sections of society, Jain argued that they lack the financial and logistical means to travel long distances to LARRA offices, thus denying them access to justice.
To overcome this, the petition suggested introduction of hybrid hearings in LARRAs, establishment of digital portals to provide online services, orders and judgments, and e-filing facility among other measures. Under the old land acquisition law, such claims used to be dealt with by the civil courts.