SC upholds RTI Act Sections 12(5)(6) and 15(5)(6) with modifications requiring judicial-expert benches

The SC upheld the constitutionality of Sections 12(5) and (6) and 15(5) and (6) of the Right to Information Act, 2005, but with significant modifications. The Court clarified that "knowledge and experience in law" requires both a basic law degree and practical experience. Information Commissions must now operate with two-member benches comprising one judicial member and one expert member. The judicial member must possess a law degree with judicial experience or be a lawyer with twenty years' practice and social work experience. Chief Information Commissioners at central and state levels must be former Chief Justices of HC or SC Judges, with appointments made in consultation with CJI and respective Chief Justices. The writ petition was partly allowed.

---

---

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.

---