NAMIT SHARMA versus UNION OF INDIA

Citation: [2013] 13 S.C.R. 1 · Decided: 13-09-2012 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.K. PATNAIK · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

. .,1._ 
',( 
' 
. -~ 
' 
[2013] 13 S.C.R. 1 
NAMIT SHARMA 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA 
(Writ Petition (Civil) No. 210 of 2012) 
SEPTEMBER 13, 2012 
[A.K. PATNAIK AND SWATANTER KUMAR, JJ.] 
Right to Information Act, 2005: 
A 
8 
ss. 12(5), (6) and 15(5), (6) - Appointment to the post of c 
Chief Information Commissioners and Information 
Commissioners at Central as well as State Level - Eligibility 
criteria - Constitutional validity of - Held: The provisions of ss. 
12(5) and 15(5) are constitutionally valid with a rider that the 
court will have to read into the provisions that the expression 0 
'knowledge and experience' would mean and include a basic 
degree in the field and the experience gained thereafter - The 
provisions ulss. 12(6) and 15(6) are vague, have no nexus with 
the object of the Act and there is no intelligible differentia to 
,support such classification - The court would, rather than 
deq(aring ss. 12(6) and 15(6) unconstitutional, would read E 
down\{hese provisions as having effect post-appointment 
rather than pre-appointment - Direction to legislature to 
suitably amend the provisions and direction to competent 
authority to frame rules - Constitution of India, 1950 - Art. 14. 
F 
Central/State Information Commissions - Character and 
structure of - The Information Commissions are quasi-judicial 
authorities or tribunals performing judicial functions - The 
Commission is vested with civil as well as penal powers - It is 
required to determine the disputes by striking a balance G 
between right to privacy and right to information - The nature 
of functions of the Commission involves an adjudicatory 
process - It possesses the essential attributes and trappings 
of a court - Once Information Commission is held to be 
1 
H 
2 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2013] 13 S.C.R. 
A 
essentially a quasi-judicial forum, the Chief Information 
Commissioner and members of the Commission should b·e 
the persons possessing requisite qualification and experience 
in the field of Law and/or other specified fi~lds - The 
Commission to work in a bench of two i.e. a Judicial member' 
B 
and an expert member' - Appointment to the post of judicial 
member should be made in consultation' with the Chief Justice 
of India in case of Central Information Commission and with 
the Chief Justices of the High Courts of the respective States 
in case of State Information Commissions - The term 
c experience in law and other specified field as enumerated ul 
ss. 12(5) and 15(5) of the Act would take within its ambit both-
requisite qualification as well as experience in that field -A 
Law Officer or a lawyer having twenty years of law practice and 
having experience of social work is also eligible for 
0 
appointment as judicial member - For appointment as 
Information Commissioners, the authority should prefer a 
person who is or has been a judge of High Court - Chief 
Information Commissioner shall only be a person who is or 
has been Chief Justice of High Court or a Judge of Supreme 
E Court - A panel of prospective members should be created 
by the Department of Personnel and Training or the 
concerned State level ministry and be placed before the High 
Powered Committee to make selections in accordance with 
s. 12(3) of the Act. 
F 
G 
H 
First 
Appellate 
Authority 
Qualification 
Recommendation of Court that the qualification for the post 
should be degree in law and adequate knowledge and 
experience in the field of law. 
Judicial Review: 
Determination of constitutionality of a statute - Principles 
to be followed - While determining the constitutional validity 
of a statute, court has to see the legislative competence and 
the provisions of the statute to be examined in the light of the 
·y 
•
NAMIT SHARMA v. UNION OF INDIA 
3 
/l 
provisions of the Constitution - No prejudice needs to be 
A 
proved in cases of breach of fundamental rights - Even if two 
views are possible, one making the statute constitutional, the 
court to make efforts to uphold its constitutional validity - There 
is presumption of constitutionality in favour of legislation - The 
burden to prove that the enacted law offends fundamental 
B 
rights is on the one who questions the constitutionality and 
shows that despite the presumption of constitutionality, the 
statue is unfair, unjust and unreasonable - Declaring the Law 
·~ 
unconstitutional is one of the last resorts taken by courts - The 
~ 
courts should prefer to put into service principles of 'readin

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.