UNION OF INDIA versus NAMIT SHARMA

Citation: [2013] 13 S.C.R. 96 · Decided: 03-09-2013 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.K. PATNAIK · Disposal: Case Allowed

Cited by 4 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2013] 13 S.C.R. 96 
A 
UNION OF INDIA 
).. 
v. 
NAMIT SHARMA 
REVIEW PETITION [C] No.2309 OF 2012 
IN 
B 
WRIT PETITION [CJ N0.210 OF 2012 
SEPTEMBER 3, 2013 
[A.K. PATNAIK AND A.K. SIKRI, JJ.) 
" 
c 
Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 137 - Review under 
)-.. 
- Held: Is confined to only errors apparent on the face of the 
record - On an application for review, the Supreme Court can 
reverse or modify its decision on the ground of mistake of law 
or fact - In the instant case, as the judgment under review 
D suffered from mistake of law, directions and declarations in 
the judgment under review recalled - Supreme Court Rules, 
1966 - Order XL. 
+ 
Right to Information Act, 2005 - ss. 12(5) and 15(5) -
E Appointment of Central Information Commissioner I 
Information Commissioner - Eligibility criteria - ss. 12(5) and 
15(5) providing that Chief Information Commissioner and 
Information Commissioners shall be persons with eminence 
in public life with wide knowledge and experience in law, 
F 
science and technology, social service, management, 
journalism, mass media or administration and governance -
).._ 
Constitutional validity of ss.12(5) and 15(5) - Upheld in the 
judgment under review, but with the rider that the expression 
... 
'knowledge and experience' appearing in the provisions would 
mean and include a basic degree in the respective field and 
G the experience gained thereafter; and that appointments of 
legally qualified, judicially trained and experienced persons 
.~ -
would certainly manifest in more effective serving of the ends 
of justice as well as ensuring better administration of justice 
-
H 
96 
UNION OF INDIAv. NAMIT SHARMA 
97 
.J_ 
by the Information Commission - Held: ss.12(5) and 15(5) are 
A 
not ultra vires the Constitution - Said provisions, however, do 
not prescribe any basic qualification in the respective fields 
of work - In the judgment under review, missing words were 
"read into" ss.12(5) and 15(5) and it was held that a basic 
"""" -
degree in the respective field was required - This "reading 
B 
into" the provisions of ss. 12(5) and 15(5), words which the 
Parliament has not intended is contrary to the principles of 
statutory interpretation - The court could not correct or make 
up for any deficiencies or omissions in the language of the 
statute - ss.12(5) and 15(5) do not provide that the Chief c 
Information Commissioner and Information Commissioners 
shall be persons having judicial experience, training and 
acumen - Yet, in the judgment under review, it was held that 
for effectively petforming the functions and exercising the 
powers of the Information Commission, there is a requirement D 
of a judicial mind and therefore persons eligible for 
__.. 
appointment should preferably have judicial background and 
possess judicial acumen and experience - Such direction 
amounted to encroachment in the field of legislation - Since 
Information Commissions do not exercise judicial powers, the 
E 
constitutional principles of separation of powers and 
independence of judiciary cannot be relied upon to direct that 
they must be manned by persons with judicial training, 
' 
experience and acumen or former Judges of the High Court 
' 
or the Supreme Court - Interpretation of Statute. 
. 
_;.. 
F 
Right to Information Act, 2005 - ss. 12(5) and 15(5) -
~ 
Matter involving intricate questions of law - Duty of the Chief 
Information Commissioner - Held: Wherever, the Chief 
Information Commissioner is of the opinion that intricate 
questions of law will have to be decided in a matter coming 
G 
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 . 
....,..,.. 
Right to Information Act, 2005 - ss. 12(6) and 15(6)-
H 
98 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2013] 13 S.C.R. 
A Appointment of Chief Information Commissioner/Information 
Commissioner - Disqualification provision u/ss.12(6) and 
15(6) - Interpretation and effect of - Held: ss. 12(6) and 15(6) 
do not debar a Member of Parliament or Member of the 
Legislature of any State or Union Territory, as the case may 
B 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/Information Commissioner 
- But after such person is appointed as Chief Information 
c Com

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