NAMIT SHARMA versus UNION OF INDIA

NAMIT SHARMA versus UNION OF INDIA

Sections 12(5) and 15(5) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 are constitutionally valid when interpreted to require a basic degree and experience in the respective field, particularly law, for appointments to the Information Commissions. Sections 12(6) and 15(6) are to be read as applicable post-appointment, not pre-appointment, and do not offend Article 14. The Information Commissions are quasi-judicial authorities, requiring appointments in consultation with the judiciary, with benches consisting of judicial and expert members.

Parties
Petitioner: Namit Sharma; Respondent: Union of India
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
13 September 2012
Procedural Posture
Writ Petition (civil) No. 210 of 2012 / Final Judgment
Outcome
Petition partly allowed
Legal Topics
Judicial Review, Right to Information, Quasi Judicial Tribunals, Appointment Criteria, Equality Before Law
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Judicial Review Right to Information Quasi Judicial Tribunals Appointment Criteria Equality Before Law

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 16 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Namit Sharma

Petitioner

Union of India

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Writ Petition (civil) No. 210 of 2012 / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the eligibility criteria for appointment of Chief Information Commissioners and Information Commissioners under Sections 12(5),(6) and 15(5),(6) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 is constitutionally valid
  2. 2 Whether the provisions offend Article 14 of the Constitution
  3. 3 Whether the Information Commission is a judicial/quasi-judicial tribunal requiring judicial expertise

Ratio Decidendi

Sections 12(5) and 15(5) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 are constitutionally valid when interpreted to require a basic degree and experience in the respective field, particularly law, for appointments to the Information Commissions. Sections 12(6) and 15(6) are to be read as applicable post-appointment, not pre-appointment, and do not offend Article 14. The Information Commissions are quasi-judicial authorities, requiring appointments in consultation with the judiciary, with benches consisting of judicial and expert members.

Court Disposition

Petition partly allowed

Orders

  • Sections 12(5) and 15(5) held constitutionally valid, subject to being read to include a basic degree and experience.
  • Sections 12(6) and 15(6) to apply post-appointment only, not pre-appointment.