UNION OF INDIA versus NAMIT SHARMA

UNION OF INDIA versus NAMIT SHARMA

Sections 12(5) and 15(5) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 do not require judicial qualification or experience; directions 'reading in' such requirement were erroneous. Information Commissions discharge administrative, not judicial functions, and there is no constitutional requirement that Commissioners be judicially trained. Mandamus cannot be issued to compel rule framing under discretionary statutory provisions. The judgment under review contained apparent errors of law and is rectified on review.

Parties
Petitioner: Union of India; Respondent: Namit Sharma
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
03 September 2013
Procedural Posture
Review Petition Under Article 137 of the Constitution in Writ Petition [c] No.210 of 2012 / Final Decision on Review
Outcome
Review Petition allowed; previous judgment recalled and directions/declarations modified.
Legal Topics
Constitutional Validity of Statutory Provisions, Statutory Interpretation, Appointment and Eligibility of Information Commissioners, Separation of Powers, Review Jurisdiction, Administrative Vs Judicial Functions
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Right to Information Constitutional Validity of Statutory Provisions Statutory Interpretation Appointment and Eligibility of Information Commissioners Separation of Powers Review Jurisdiction +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Union of India

Petitioner

Namit Sharma

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Petition Under Article 137 of the Constitution in Writ Petition [c] No.210 of 2012 / Final Decision on Review

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Sections 12(5), 12(6), 15(5), and 15(6) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 are ultra vires the Constitution
  2. 2 Whether eligibility criteria for appointment of Information Commissioners are vague and violative of Article 14
  3. 3 Whether Information Commissions exercise judicial functions necessitating judicial acumen in appointees

Ratio Decidendi

Sections 12(5) and 15(5) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 do not require judicial qualification or experience; directions 'reading in' such requirement were erroneous. Information Commissions discharge administrative, not judicial functions, and there is no constitutional requirement that Commissioners be judicially trained. Mandamus cannot be issued to compel rule framing under discretionary statutory provisions. The judgment under review contained apparent errors of law and is rectified on review.

Court Disposition

Review Petition allowed; previous judgment recalled and directions/declarations modified.

Orders

  • Sections 12(5) and 15(5) are constitutionally valid and not ultra vires.
  • Sections 12(6) and 15(6) do not debar certain persons from appointment, but once appointed they must discontinue any conflicting positions or professions.