Bombay high court on Saturday (September 26), reproached the state government exhibiting its surprise to the fact that during the period of six months after lock-down was announced, the State did not consider it appropriate to provide for hearing through a virtual platform and is still praying for some more time to make the system operational.
The PIL was filed by RTI activist Shailesh Gandhi and others regarding the continuation of hearings of appeals under the Right to Information Act, 2005. The petitioners were seeking directions from the respondents regarding the issue of appropriate guidelines or directions to all the public authorities in the State of Maharashtra to adopt an appropriate online video conferencing platform for conducting hearings pertaining to proceedings under the diverse statutes applicable to such public authorities as well as for conducting hearing of First Appeals under the Right to Information Act, 2005.
Wanted To Stay Updated & Gain Knowledge. Join Our What'sApp Group Here.
The court on the hearing of the case on 15 September, asked the additional government pleader, representing the respondents, to take instruction on the issues raised by the petitioner. In response, the learned counsel submitted a letter by the chief secretary of the government of Maharashtra.
The divisional bench of Chief Justice Dipankar Dutta and Justice G.S. Kulkarni remarked after considering the abovementioned letter “It appears, on the reading of such letter, that the Government of Maharashtra is inclined to adopt appropriate online video conferencing platform for conducting hearing of quasi-judicial/administrative proceedings; however, the procedure may take some time as a meeting will have to be convened with the concerned Departments including the Finance Department and that necessary guidelines and directions would be issued to all the public authorities thereafter. It also appears that some of the authorities are already conducting the hearing through video conferencing.”
Wanted To Stay Updated & Gain Knowledge. Join Our What'sApp Group Here.
The court further mentioned that it was surprising that the state government, in the period of six months of lockdown, still didn’t consider it appropriate to provide hearing through a virtual platform and was still praying for more time to make the system operational. The court reluctantly adjourned the hearing for three weeks hoping for better steps taken by the state government, leaving no space for petitioner’s complaints.
0 Comments