2013 (10) TMI 1108 - SC - Indian Laws

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

Union of India Versus Namit Sharma

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 ... Qualification of person to be appointed as Information Commissioners - Validity of provisions of RTI - Whether provisions of Sections 12(5), 12(6), 15(5) and 15(6) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 are ultra vires the Constitution - Held that:- Under Order XL of the Supreme Court Rules, 1966 this Court can review its judgment or order on the ground of error apparent on the face of record and on an application for review can reverse or modify its decision on the ground of mistake of law or fact. As the judgment under review suffers from mistake of law, we allow the Review Petitions, recall the directions and declarations in the judgment under review and dispose of Writ Petition (C) No. 210 of 2012 with the following declarations and directions: (i) We declare that Sections 12(5) and 15(5) of the Act are not ultra vires the Constitution. (ii) We declare that Sections 12(6) and 15(6) of the Act do not debar a Member of Parliament or Member of the Legislature of any State or Union Territory, as the case may be, or a person holding any other office of profit or connected with any political party or carrying on any business or pursuing any profession from being considered for appointment as Chief Information Commissioner or Information Commissioner, but after such person is appointed as Chief Information Commissioner or Information Commissioner, he has to discontinue as Member of Parliament or Member of the Legislature of any State or Union Territory, or discontinue to hold any other office of profit or remain connected with any political party or carry on any business or pursue any profession during the period he functions as Chief Information Commissioner or Information Commissioner. (iii) We direct that only persons of eminence in public life with wide knowledge and experience in the fields mentioned in Sections 12(5) and 15(5) of the Act be considered for appointment as Information Commissioner and Chief Information Commissioner. (iv) We further direct that persons of eminence in public life with wide knowledge and experience in all the fields mentioned in Sections 12(5) and 15(5) of the Act, namely, law, science and technology, social service, management, journalism, mass media or administration and governance, be considered by the Committees under Sections 12(3) and 15(3) of the Act for appointment as Chief Information Commissioner or Information Commissioners. (v) We further direct that the Committees under Sections 12(3) and 15(3) of the Act while making recommendations to the President or to the Governor, as the case may be, for appointment of Chief Information Commissioner and Information Commissioners 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 the citizens as part of their right to information under the Act after the appointment is made. (vi) We also direct that wherever Chief Information Commissioner is of the opinion that intricate questions of law will have to be decided in a matter coming up before the Information Commission, he will ensure that the matter is heard by an Information Commissioner who has wide knowledge and experience in the field of law. 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.