Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Make Most of Text Search
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 Case Laws - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
  • Title Only
  • Head Notes
  • Citation
Party Name: ?
Party name / Appeal No.
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • GST
  • Income Tax
  • Benami Property
  • Customs
  • Corporate Laws
  • Securities / SEBI
  • Insolvency & Bankruptcy
  • FEMA
  • Law of Competition
  • PMLA
  • Service Tax
  • Central Excise
  • CST, VAT & Sales Tax
  • Wealth tax
  • Indian Laws
Courts: ?
Select Court or Tribunal
---- All Courts ----
  • ---- All Courts ----
  • Supreme Court - All
  • Supreme Court
  • SC Orders / Highlights
  • High Court
  • Appellate Tribunal
  • Tribunal
  • Appellate authority for Advance Ruling
  • Advance Ruling Authority
  • National Financial Reporting Authority
  • Competition Commission of India
  • ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY
  • Commission
  • Central Government
  • Board
  • DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court
  • Commissioner / Appellate Authority
  • Other
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court
Landmark: ?
Where case is referred in other cases
---- All Cases ----
  • ---- All Cases ----
  • Referred in >= 3 Cases
  • Referred in >= 4 Cases
  • Referred in >= 5 Cases
  • Referred in >= 10 Cases
  • Referred in >= 15 Cases
  • Referred in >= 25 Cases
  • Referred in >= 50 Cases
  • Referred in >= 100 Cases
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:
TMI Citation:
Year
  • Year
  • 2025
  • 2024
  • 2023
  • 2022
  • 2021
  • 2020
  • 2019
  • 2018
  • 2017
  • 2016
  • 2015
  • 2014
  • 2013
  • 2012
  • 2011
  • 2010
  • 2009
  • 2008
  • 2007
  • 2006
  • 2005
  • 2004
  • 2003
  • 2002
  • 2001
  • 2000
  • 1999
  • 1998
  • 1997
  • 1996
  • 1995
  • 1994
  • 1993
  • 1992
  • 1991
  • 1990
  • 1989
  • 1988
  • 1987
  • 1986
  • 1985
  • 1984
  • 1983
  • 1982
  • 1981
  • 1980
  • 1979
  • 1978
  • 1977
  • 1976
  • 1975
  • 1974
  • 1973
  • 1972
  • 1971
  • 1970
  • 1969
  • 1968
  • 1967
  • 1966
  • 1965
  • 1964
  • 1963
  • 1962
  • 1961
  • 1960
  • 1959
  • 1958
  • 1957
  • 1956
  • 1955
  • 1954
  • 1953
  • 1952
  • 1951
  • 1950
  • 1949
  • 1948
  • 1947
  • 1946
  • 1945
  • 1944
  • 1943
  • 1942
  • 1941
  • 1940
  • 1939
  • 1938
  • 1937
  • 1936
  • 1935
  • 1934
  • 1933
  • 1932
  • 1931
  • 1930
Volume
  • Volume
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
TMI
Example : 2024 (6) TMI 204
By Case ID:

When case Id is present, search is done only for this

Sort By: ?
Even if Sort by Date is selected, exact match will be shown on the top.
RelevanceDate
    No Records Found
    ❯❯
    MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
    0 / 200
    Expand Note
    Add to Folder

    No Folders have been created

      +

      Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

      NOTE:

      Case Laws
      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Results Found:
      AI TextQuick Glance by AIHeadnote
      No Records Found

      Case Laws

      Back

      All Case Laws

      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Showing
      Records
      ExpandCollapse
        No Records Found

        Case Laws

        Back

        All Case Laws

        Showing Results for : Reset Filters
        Case ID :

        📋
        Contents
        Note

        Note

        -

        Bookmark

        print

        Print

        Login to TaxTMI
        Verification Pending

        The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on

        Didn't receive the mail? Resend Mail

        Don't have an account? Register Here

        <h1>SC upholds RTI Act Sections 12(5)(6) and 15(5)(6) with modifications requiring judicial-expert benches</h1> <h3>Namit Sharma Versus Union of India</h3> Namit Sharma Versus Union of India - 2012 (8) SCALE 593, 2013 (1) SCC 745 Issues Involved:1. Constitutionality of Sections 12(5) and 12(6) and Sections 15(5) and 15(6) of the Right to Information Act, 2005.2. Eligibility criteria for Chief Information Commissioner and Information Commissioners.3. Requirement of legal acumen for Information Commissioners.4. Procedural guidelines for appointments to Information Commissions.5. Functioning and nature of Information Commissions.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Constitutionality of Sections 12(5) and 12(6) and Sections 15(5) and 15(6) of the Right to Information Act, 2005:The petitioner challenged the constitutionality of these sections on grounds including vagueness, lack of specific qualifications, and potential arbitrariness, arguing they violated Articles 14, 16, and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. The court held that while Sections 12(5) and 15(5) are constitutionally valid, they need to be interpreted to include a basic degree in the respective fields and experience gained thereafter. Sections 12(6) and 15(6) were read to apply post-appointment, meaning cessation of any office of profit or business is a condition precedent to the appointment.2. Eligibility Criteria for Chief Information Commissioner and Information Commissioners:The court emphasized that the Chief Information Commissioner and Information Commissioners should be persons of eminence in public life with wide knowledge and experience in specified fields. The terms 'knowledge and experience' were interpreted to include basic qualifications in the respective fields. The court suggested that judicial members should preferably be persons who have been Judges of the High Court or the Supreme Court.3. Requirement of Legal Acumen for Information Commissioners:The court noted that the Information Commission performs quasi-judicial functions and thus requires members with legal expertise. It was emphasized that legally qualified, judicially trained, and experienced persons would enhance the effectiveness of the Commission. The court recommended that the Commission should work in Benches comprising one judicial member and one expert member from specified fields.4. Procedural Guidelines for Appointments to Information Commissions:The court directed that appointments should be made in consultation with the judiciary to ensure independence and public confidence. The DoPT and concerned Ministries should prepare a panel of candidates after due advertisement, and the High-powered Committee should adopt a fair and transparent method for recommending appointments. The selection process should begin at least three months before a vacancy arises.5. Functioning and Nature of Information Commissions:The court declared that the Information Commission is a judicial tribunal with the trappings of a court, performing functions of judicial and quasi-judicial nature. The Commission's orders are subject to judicial review by the High Court and the Supreme Court. The court directed that the Commission should adhere to the doctrine of precedence and maintain judicial discipline.Conclusion:The judgment upheld the constitutionality of the challenged provisions with specific interpretations to ensure they align with constitutional mandates. It emphasized the need for legal expertise in the Information Commissions and provided detailed procedural guidelines for appointments to enhance transparency and effectiveness. The Information Commission was recognized as a judicial tribunal, reinforcing its role in the administration of justice.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found