Key Points: - The Supreme Court holds Sections 12(5) and 15(5) constitutionally valid with a reading down to include a basic degree and post-qualification experience in the relevant field (!) (!) . - It reads Sections 12(6) and 15(6) as applicable post-appointment restrictions (cessation of prior offices/business/profession) to ensure eligibility, rather than pre-appointment disqualification, to some extent reinterpreting the provisions to maintain equality (!) . - The Act is a judicial/ quasi-judicial framework; Information Commissioners possess adjudicatory powers and must operate with a judicial mind, necessitating legally trained personnel (!) (!) (!) (!) . - Appointments should involve consultation with judiciary and a fair, transparent process, including a High Powered Committee, with benching (one judicial member and one expert) and consultation requirements as outlined (!) (!) (!) . - The proceedings and orders of Information Commissions are subject to judicial review, preserving supremacy of Article 141 precedents and High Court/Supreme Court oversight (!) (!) . - The judgment directs procedural rules to be framed within six months to implement these constitutional interpretations and appointment processes (!) .

How to determine the constitutionality of Sections 12(5) and 15(5) of the Right to Information Act, 2005?

What is the appropriate interpretation of the eligibility criteria in Sections 12(5) and 15(5) to satisfy Article 14?

What is the proper method for appointing Central and State Information Commissioners to ensure judicial independence and public confidence?