Find out the petitioner namit sharma

He questioned  the constitutional validity of sub-Sections (5) and (6) of Section 12  and  sub-Sections (5) and (6) of Section 15 of the Right to Information Act  of  2005.

He achieved following directions as prospectively;

1. The writ petition was partly allowed.

2. The provisions of Sections 12(5) and 15(5) of the Act of  2005  are  held to be constitutionally valid, but with the  rider  that,  to  give  it  a meaningful and purposive interpretation,  it is necessary for  the  Court to  ‘read  into’  these  provisions  some  aspects  without  which  these provisions are bound to offend the doctrine of equality.  Thus, we  hold and declare that the expression ‘knowledge and experience’  appearing  in these provisions would mean and include a basic degree in the  respective field and  the  experience  gained  thereafter.  Further, without   any peradventure and  veritably,  we  state  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 by  the  Commission.  It would render the adjudicatory process which involves critical  legal  questions and nuances of law, more adherent to justice and shall enhance the public confidence in the working of  the  Commission.  This is the obvious interpretation of the language of these provisions and, in fact, is the essence thereof.

3. As opposed to  declaring  the  provisions  of  Section  12(6)  and  15(6) unconstitutional, we would prefer to  read  these  provisions  as  having effect  ‘post-appointment’.  In  other  words,  cessation/termination  of holding of office of profit, pursuing  any  profession  or  carrying  any business is a condition precedent to the appointment of a person as Chief Information Commissioner or Information Commissioner  at  the  Centre  or State levels.

4. There is an absolute necessity for the legislature  to  reword  or  amend the provisions of Section 12(5), 12(6) and 15(5), 15(6) of the Act.    We observe and hope that these provisions would be amended at  the  earliest by the legislature to avoid any ambiguity or impracticability and to make it in consonance with the constitutional mandates.

5.  We  also  direct  that  the  Central  Government  and/or  the  competent authority shall frame all practice and procedure related  rules  to  make working of the Information Commissions effective and in  consonance  with the basic rule of law.   Such rules  should  be  framed  with  particular reference to Section 27 and 28 of the Act within a period of  six  months from today.

6. We are of the considered view that it is  an  unquestionable  proposition of law that the Commission is a ‘judicial tribunal’ performing  functions of ‘judicial’ as well as ‘quasi-judicial’ nature and having the trappings of a Court.   It is an important cog and is part of  the  court  attached system of administration of justice, unlike a ministerial tribunal  which is more influenced and controlled and  performs  functions  akin  to  the machinery of administration.

7. It will be just, fair and  proper  that  the  first  appellate  authority (i.e. the senior officers to be nominated in terms of Section  5  of  the Act of 2005) preferably should be the persons possessing a degree in  law or having adequate knowledge and experience in the field of law.

8. The Information Commissions at the  respective  levels  shall  henceforth work in Benches of two members each.   One  of  them  being  a  ‘judicial member’, while the other an ‘expert member’.  The judicial member  should be a person possessing a degree in law, having a judicially trained  mind and experience in performing judicial functions.   A  law  officer  or  a lawyer may also be eligible provided he is a person who has practiced lawat  least  for  a  period  of  twenty  years  as  on  the  date  of   the advertisement.  Such lawyer should also have experience in  social  work.  We are of the considered view that the competent authority should  prefer a person who is or has been a Judge of the High Court for appointment  as Information Commissioners.  Chief Information Commissioner at the  Centre or State level shall only be a person who is or has been a Chief  Justice of the High Court or a Judge of the Supreme Court of India.

9. The appointment of the judicial members to any of these  posts  shall  be made ‘in consultation’ with the Chief Justice of India and Chief Justices of the High Courts of the respective States, as the case may be. 

10. The appointment of the Information Commissioners at both  levels  should be made from amongst the persons empanelled by the DoPT in  the  case  of Centre and the concerned Ministry in the case of a State.  The panel  has to be prepared upon due advertisement and on a rational basis  as  afore-recorded.

11. The panel so prepared by the DoPT or the concerned Ministry ought to  be placed before the High-powered Committee in terms of Section  12(3),  for final recommendation to the President of India.  Needless to repeat  that the High Powered Committee at the Centre and the State levels is expected to adopt a fair and transparent method  of  recommending  the  names  for appointment to the competent authority.

12. The selection process should be commenced at least  three  months  prior to the occurrence of vacancy.

13. This judgment shall have effect only prospectively.

14. Under the scheme of the Act of 2005, it is clear that the orders of  the Commissions are subject to judicial review before the High Court and then before the Supreme Court of India.   In  terms  of  Article  141  of  the Constitution, the judgments of the Supreme Court are law of the land  and are binding on all courts and tribunals.  Thus, it  is  abundantly  clear that the Information Commission is bound by the law of precedence,  i.e., judgments of the High Court and the Supreme Court of India.  In order  to maintain judicial discipline and consistency in the  functioning  of  the Commission,  we  direct  that  the  Commission  shall  give   appropriate

attention to the doctrine  of  precedence  and  shall  not  overlook  the judgments  of  the  courts  dealing  with  the  subject  and   principles applicable, in a given case.

 
It is not only the higher court’s  judgments  that  are  binding precedents for the Information Commission,  but  even  those  of  the larger Benches of the Commission should be given due  acceptance  and enforcement by the smaller Benches of the Commission. The rule of precedence is equally applicable to intra appeals  or  references  in the hierarchy of the Commission.