Art. 137 - Namit Sharma, (2013) 1 SCC 745 - Review of - Error apparent on the face of the record - Interpretation of
statute at variance with clear and simple language thereof - Eligibility criteria for appointment as Chief Information
Commissioner and Information Commissioners (CIC/ICs) under Ss. 12(5), 12(6), 15(5) and 15(6) of Right to Information
Act, 2005 (RTI Act) - Supreme Court in impugned judgment held that Central/State Information Commission is a tribunal
discharging quasi-judicial functions, therefore, there is requirement of a judicial mind and persons eligible for appointment
should preferably have judicial background, acumen and experience and must be judicial officers or retired Judges/Chief
Justices of High Court or Supreme Court, hence appointments to Central/State Information Commissions are to be made
in consultation with the Judiciary - Questioned by review petitioner as amounting to judicial amendment of legislation -
Held, as judgment under review suffers from mistake of law, Directions 108.8 and 108.9 therein are recalled - Parliament
has not provided in Ss. 12(5) and 15(5) of RTI Act for appointment of person with judicial experience, training and
acumen and Judges as CIC/ICs, and any such direction amounts to encroachment in the field of the legislature - Hence,
directed that persons of eminence in public life with wide knowledge and experience in all the fields mentioned in Ss.
12(5) and 15(5) of RTI Act, to be considered for appointment as CIC/ICs - Where CIC is of the opinion that intricate
questions of law will have to be decided he will ensure that the matter is heard by an IC who has wide knowledge and
experience in the field of law,
Union of India v. Namit Sharma, (2013) 10 SCC 359
Right to Information Act, 2005
Ss. 12(5), 15(5), 12(3) & 15(3) and 2(j) & 3 - Chief Information Commissioner/Information Commissioners (CIC/ICs) -
Appointment of - Mechanism to ensure that criteria specified in Ss. 12(5)/15(5) are complied with - Held, the Committees
under Ss. 12(3) and 15(3) of the RTI Act while making recommendations to President or to Governor, as the case may
be, for appointment of CIC/ICs must mention against the name of each candidate recommended, the facts to indicate his
eminence in public life, his knowledge in the particular field and his experience in the particular field and these facts must
be accessible to citizens as part of their right to information under the RTI Act after the appointment is made [Ed.: See
also Directions 108.10, 108.11 and 108.12 in Namit Sharma, (2013) 1 SCC 745 which seem to be in consonance with
the above direction.], (2013) 10 SCC 359-A
Arts. 137, 136, 226, 32 and 245 - Review - Error apparent on the face of the record - If reasoning in the judgment under
review is at variance with the clear and simple language in a statute, the judgment under review suffers from a manifest
error of law, an error apparent on the face of the record, and is liable to be rectified,
Right to Information Act, 2005
Ss. 12(5), 5(2) and 15(5) - Central/State Information Commissions - Selection and appointment of judicial members in
Information Commissions directed in Namit Sharma, (2013) 1 SCC 745 - Prompted by experiences of the functioning and
appointments in Information Commissions - But as RTI Act does not provide for appointment of judicial members in
Information Commissions hence, Directions 108.8 and 108.9 in Namit Sharma case to this effect, recalled -
Nevertheless, as Ss. 12(5) and 15(5) provide for appointment of persons with wide knowledge and experience in law,
hope expressed that only such persons will be appointed in Central/State Information Commissions - Direction 108.2 in
Namit Sharma case, partly affirmed [Ed.: See also Direction 108.7 in Namit Sharma which contains a similar
recommendatory direction for the first appellate authority to be persons with wide knowledge and experience of law] -
Further directed, wherever CIC is of the opinion that intricate questions of law will have to be decided, CIC must ensure
that the matter is heard by an Information Commissioner who has such knowledge and experience in law, (2013) 10
SCC 359-D
Right to Information Act, 2005
Ss. 2(j), 3, 12(5) and 15(5), 18, 19, 20 - Information Commissions - Decision by Information Commissioner whether a
citizen should or should not get particular information - Nature of - Lis in respect of information sought - Nature of -
Functions of Central/State Information Commissions, held, are not judicial but administrative - Functions of Central/State
Information Commissions are limited to ensuring that a person who has sought information from a public authority
exercising their right to information is not denied such information except in accordance with provisions of the RTI Act -
While deciding whether a citizen should or should not get a particular information Central/State Information Commission
does not decide a dispute between two or more parties concerning their legal rights other than their right to get
information in possession of a public authority - Although Information Commissions are required to act in a fair and just
manner following the procedure laid down under the RTI Act, this does not mean Information Commissioners are like
Judges or Justices who must have judicial experience, training and acumen - Namit Sharma, (2013) 1 SCC 745,
Direction 108.6 recalled - [Ed.: Quaere: it having been held that the Information Commissions perform administrative
functions, whether smaller Benches of the Information Commissions must abide by rulings of larger Benches of the
Information Commissionssee Direction 108.14 in Namit Sharma],
Right to Information Act, 2005
Ss. 8(1)(d), 11, 12(5) and 15(5) - Information Commissions - Decisions of Central Public Information Officer or a State
Public Information Officer - Disclosure of information affecting/prejudicing a third party - Functions of Central/State
Information Commissions in this situation - Requirement of a judicial mind for determination of such issue also as
directed in Namit Sharma, (2013) 1 SCC 745, held, not a necessity - Information Commission does not decide the rights
of a third party but only whether the information which is held by or under the control of a public authority in relation to or
supplied by that third party could be furnished to a citizen under the provisions of the RTI Act - Hence, Information
Commission discharges administrative functions, not judicial functions even in this respect - Direction 108.6 in Namit
Sharma, (2013) 1 SCC 745, recalled, (2013) 10 SCC 359-F
Human and Civil Rights
Right to Information Act, 2005
Ss. 18, 19, 20, 12 and 15 - Exercise of powers and functions by authorities constituted under RTI Act, 2005 -
Administrative not judicial - Constitutional principles of separation of powers and independence of judiciary requiring
judicial power to be exercised by appointment of judicial persons/members, not applicable thereto - Held, Parliament has
not provided in Ss. 12(5) and 15(5) of the RTI Act for appointment of persons with judicial experience and acumen -
Hence, Directions 108.6, 108.8 and 108.9 in Namit Sharma, (2013) 1 SCC 745, for appointment of persons with judicial
experience, training and acumen and Judges as Information Commissioners and CIC amounts to encroachment upon
field of legislature, and are thus recalled, (2013) 10 SCC 359-G
Human and Civil Rights
Right to Information Act, 2005
Ss. 12(5) and 15(5) - Appointment as Chief Information Commissioner/Information Commissioners (CIC/ICs) -
Qualifications - Persons with eminence in public life with knowledge and experience in law, science and technology,
social service, management, journalism, mass media or administration and governance - Graduate/Basic degree read
into Ss. 12(5) and 15(5) by judicial interpretation in Namit Sharma case, held, invalid - Hence, Direction 108.2 therein
partly recalled - Ss. 12(5) and 15(5) do not prescribe any basic qualification which such persons must have in the
respective fields in which they work - This reading into provisions of Ss. 12(5) and 15(5), words which Parliament has not
intended is contrary to the principles of statutory interpretation,
Right to Information Act, 2005
Ss. 12(5) and 15(5) - Information Commissions - Appointment as Chief Information Commissioner/Information
Commissioners (CIC/ICs) - Qualifications and eligibility criteria for - Statute prescribing persons of eminence in public life
with wide knowledge and experience in law, science and technology, social service, management, journalism, mass
media or administration and governance - Non-prescription of any basic qualification, held, do not offend the doctrine of
equality - Ss. 12(5) and 15(5) do not discriminate against any person in appointment as CIC/ICs so long as they are
persons of eminence in public life with wide knowledge and experience in particular fields specified - Also, to ensure
compliance with equality clause in Art. 14 of the Constitution CIC/ICs should be from different fields and not just from one
field, (2013) 10 SCC 359-I
Courts, Tribunals and Judiciary
Judicial Review/Judicial Activism/Judicial Legislation
Limits of - Court cannot correct or make up for any deficiencies or omissions in the language of the statute,
Right to Information Act, 2005
Ss. 12(6) and 15(6) - Appointment of CIC/ICs - Qualifications and Disqualifications for - Ss. 12(6)/15(6) providing that
CIC/IC shall not be a Member of Parliament/MLA, nor be holding any other office of profit or connected with any political
party or carrying on any business/profession - Interpretation - Taking effect of this bar post appointment - Direction 108.3
in Namit Sharma, (2013) 1 SCC 745 that once a person is appointed as a CIC/IC he cannot continue to be an MP/MLA
or hold any other office of profit or remain connected with any political party or carry on any business or pursue any
profession, affirmed - Such interpretation effectuates the object of the RTI Act inasmuch as CIC/ICs would be able to
perform their functions without being influenced by their political, business, professional or other interests, (2013) 10
SCC 359-K
Human and Civil Rights
Right to Information Act, 2005
Ss. 27 and 28 - Act empowering Government/competent authority to make rules to carry out provisions of the RTI Act -
Issuance of Direction 108.5 to rule-making authority to frame rules in Namit Sharma, (2013) 1 SCC 745, held, is
erroneous, and is recalled - Use of word may in Ss. 27 and 28 makes it clear that Parliament has left it to the discretion of
the rule-making authority to make rules - No mandamus can be issued to the rule-making authority to make the rules
either within a specific time or in a particular manner - Court can strike down such rules if they are ultra vires the
provisions of the parent Act - But Court cannot direct the rule-making authority to make the rules where the legislature
confers discretion on the rule-making authority to make rules,
No comments:
Post a Comment