2013 (10) TMI 1108 - SC - Indian Laws

Court Affirms Constitutionality of RTI Act Sections; Info Commissioners Need Eminence, Not Judicial Experience.

The court upheld the constitutionality of Sections 12(5), 12(6), 15(5), and 15(6) of the Right to Information Act, 2005, affirming that they do not ... Constitutional validity of eligibility criteria under Sections 12(5) and 15(5) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 - post-appointment disqualifications under Sections 12(6) and 15(6) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 - administrative versus judicial character of Information Commissions - reading words into statute and limits of judicial law making - doctrine of equality under Article 14 in appointment provisions - discretion of rule making authority where statute uses 'may' - requirement of consultation in appointments under Sections 12(3) and 15(3)Constitutional validity of eligibility criteria under Sections 12(5) and 15(5) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 - doctrine of equality under Article 14 in appointment provisions - Sections 12(5) and 15(5) of the Act are not ultra vires the Constitution and persons of eminence with wide knowledge and experience in the listed fields are to be considered for appointment. - HELD THAT: - The Court examined the plain language of Sections 12(5) and 15(5) which require that Chief Information Commissioner and Information Commissioners be persons of eminence in public life with wide knowledge and experience in specified fields. The provisions do not prescribe judicial experience or any basic degree. The Court held that these provisions do not discriminate and therefore do not offend Article 14; eligibility is met by eminence and wide knowledge and experience in law, science and technology, social service, management, journalism, mass media or administration and governance. The Court rejected the earlier reading in of a requirement of a basic degree in the respective field as impermissible judicial legislation, noting that Parliament chose not to prescribe formal educational qualifications but to require eminence and relevant experience. The Court further directed that selection committees should consider candidates from the various specified fields so as to avoid concentration from a single field and should record facts demonstrating each candidate's eminence, knowledge and experience to make those facts accessible post appointment. [Paras 18, 26, 27, 31, 32]Sections 12(5) and 15(5) are constitutionally valid; persons of eminence with wide knowledge and experience in the listed fields are to be considered and committees must record relevant facts about recommended candidates.Post-appointment disqualifications under Sections 12(6) and 15(6) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 - Sections 12(6) and 15(6) operate as post appointment conditions requiring cessation of disqualifying offices or connections once a person is appointed as Chief Information Commissioner or Information Commissioner. - HELD THAT: - Two interpretations were possible: (i) that the provisions bar consideration of persons who at the time hold disqualifying offices or connections, which would raise equality concerns, or (ii) that they require cessation of such offices/connections after appointment. The Court endorsed the second interpretation as effectuating the Act's object by ensuring incumbents perform their duties free from political, business or professional influences. Accordingly, the provisions do not render such persons ineligible for consideration but operate to require discontinuance of the specified offices, connections or occupations during tenure. [Paras 3, 28, 32]Sections 12(6) and 15(6) do not debar persons from being considered for appointment but require them to discontinue the disallowed offices, connections or occupations after appointment and during tenure.Administrative versus judicial character of Information Commissions - administrative functions discharged under Sections 18, 19 and 20 - Information Commissions discharge administrative, not judicial, functions under the Act and consequently need not be manned as courts or by persons possessing judicial office experience as a categorical requirement. - HELD THAT: - A close reading of Sections 18, 19 and 20 shows the Commission's role is to ensure access to information held by public authorities, inquire into complaints, decide appeals and impose penalties or recommend disciplinary action to ensure compliance with the Act. While the Commission exercises powers akin to a civil court for inquiry (summoning, requiring discovery, receiving evidence on affidavit, etc.) and must follow fair procedure, the Court held that these are administrative functions relating to the right of access to information rather than adjudication of inter partes legal rights in the judicial sense. Reliance on authorities distinguishing administrative 'judicial mind' duties from judicial office was affirmed. Consequently, constitutional principles requiring judicial appointments to protect judicial independence do not mandate that Information Commissions be manned by judicial officers as a matter of law. [Paras 21, 22, 23, 24, 31]Information Commissions perform administrative functions under the Act and are not judicial bodies in the strict sense; appointment of judicial officers as a categorical requirement is unnecessary.Reading words into statute and limits of judicial law making - The Court erred in the earlier judgment by 'reading into' Sections 12(5) and 15(5) a requirement of a basic degree or judicial background; such judicial supplementation of legislative text is impermissible. - HELD THAT: - Relying on settled principles, the Court reaffirmed that where statutory language is plain, courts cannot add words or rewrite the statute to supply omissions, however well intentioned. The earlier decision's insertion of educational or judicial requirements into Sections 12(5) and 15(5) was held to exceed judicial power and to amount to encroachment on legislative function. The proper role is to declare and interpret law, not to legislate qualifications Parliament omitted to prescribe. [Paras 25, 26, 31]The earlier reading in of a basic degree and mandatory judicial background into Sections 12(5) and 15(5) was an error and has been receded from.Discretion of rule making authority where statute uses 'may' - The Court cannot direct the rule making authorities to make rules within a fixed time or in a particular manner where Sections 27 and 28 confer discretionary rule making power using the word 'may'. - HELD THAT: - Sections 27(1) and 28(1) confer power on the appropriate Government and competent authority 'may' to make rules to carry out the Act. The Court held that where the legislature vests discretion in the rule making authority, the judiciary cannot issue a mandamus compelling rule making in a specified timeframe or form. If rules are made ultra vires the Act, they can be struck down, but the Court cannot prescribe the exercise of discretionary rule making power. The prior direction to frame rules within six months was therefore a patent error and has been withdrawn. [Paras 29, 32]Direction compelling rule making under Sections 27 and 28 within six months was inappropriate and has been set aside; the rule making authorities retain statutory discretion.Requirement of consultation in appointments under Sections 12(3) and 15(3) - While selection must follow the statutory consultative/committee mechanism, the Court has directed procedural safeguards for transparency in recommendations but has withdrawn categorical directions imposing judicial appointments. - HELD THAT: - Sections 12(3) and 15(3) prescribe appointment by the President/Governor on recommendation of the statutory committee. The Court recognised these statutory safeguards and directed that committees consider candidates across the specified fields and record facts demonstrating each candidate's eminence and field experience to be accessible post appointment. At the same time the Court clarified that it cannot compel the legislature to prescribe judicial appointments; earlier directions preferring judicial officers as a categorical rule have been rescinded. [Paras 6, 30, 32]Committees under Sections 12(3) and 15(3) must consider candidates from the specified fields, record and make accessible the facts establishing eminence and experience, but categorical judicial member appointment directions have been withdrawn.Final Conclusion: The review petitions succeed. The Court recalled and modified aspects of its earlier judgment: Sections 12(5) and 15(5) are constitutionally valid as worded and need not be read to impose formal educational or mandatory judicial qualifications; Sections 12(6) and 15(6) operate post appointment; the Information Commissions discharge administrative (not strict judicial) functions; the Court cannot compel rule making where the statute confers discretionary power; and selection committees must consider candidates across the statutory fields and record reasons for recommendations. Issues Involved:1. Constitutionality of Sections 12(5), 12(6), 15(5), and 15(6) of the Right to Information Act, 2005.2. Eligibility criteria for appointment of Information Commissioners.3. Interpretation of the term 'persons of eminence in public life with wide knowledge and experience.'4. Requirement of judicial experience for Information Commissioners.5. Role and functions of Information Commissions.6. Directions for framing rules and procedures for the Information Commissions.Detailed Analysis:Constitutionality of Sections 12(5), 12(6), 15(5), and 15(6) of the Right to Information Act, 2005:The Court reviewed the constitutionality of Sections 12(5), 12(6), 15(5), and 15(6) of the Right to Information Act, 2005. It upheld the validity of these sections, stating that they do not violate the Constitution. The Court interpreted Sections 12(6) and 15(6) as applying post-appointment, meaning that once appointed, the Chief Information Commissioner or Information Commissioner must discontinue any other office of profit, political connections, business, or profession.Eligibility Criteria for Appointment of Information Commissioners:The Court addressed the eligibility criteria for Information Commissioners, emphasizing that the Act requires them to be '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.' The Court held that these criteria do not necessitate judicial experience but should include a basic degree in the respective field to ensure a meaningful and purposive interpretation.Interpretation of the Term 'Persons of Eminence in Public Life with Wide Knowledge and Experience':The Court clarified that the term 'persons of eminence in public life with wide knowledge and experience' should be interpreted to include individuals with a basic degree in the specified fields. This interpretation ensures that the provisions align with the doctrine of equality under Article 14 of the Constitution.Requirement of Judicial Experience for Information Commissioners:The Court initially held that judicial experience was necessary for Information Commissioners due to the quasi-judicial nature of their functions. However, upon review, it concluded that the functions of the Information Commissions are administrative rather than judicial. It stated that requiring judicial experience would amount to encroaching on legislative territory, as the Act does not mandate such qualifications.Role and Functions of Information Commissions:The Court examined the role and functions of the Information Commissions, noting that they perform administrative functions rather than judicial ones. The Commissions are tasked with ensuring that citizens' right to information is upheld while balancing other public interests. The Court emphasized that the Commissions must act fairly and justly but do not require judicial training or experience.Directions for Framing Rules and Procedures for the Information Commissions:The Court directed the Central Government and competent authorities to frame rules and procedures to make the working of the Information Commissions effective and in consonance with the rule of law. However, it acknowledged that mandating rule-making within a specific period or manner is beyond judicial power, as rule-making is a legislative function.Final Directions:1. Sections 12(5) and 15(5) of the Act are constitutionally valid.2. Sections 12(6) and 15(6) do not debar certain individuals from being considered for appointment but require them to discontinue other roles post-appointment.3. Only persons of eminence in public life with wide knowledge and experience in specified fields should be considered for appointment.4. Committees must consider candidates from all specified fields and provide reasons for their recommendations, accessible to the public.5. The Chief Information Commissioner should ensure that matters involving intricate legal questions are heard by Commissioners with legal knowledge and experience.The judgment underscores the importance of maintaining a balance between administrative efficiency and adherence to constitutional principles, ensuring that the Information Commissions function effectively within the framework of the law.