Advocates:
B. V. BALARAM DASAMIT SHARMA

Page 1

JUDGMENT

Reportable

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

REVIEW PETITION [C] No.2309 OF 2012

IN

WRIT PETITION [C] NO.210 OF 2012

Union of India

… Petitioner

Versus

Namit Sharma …

Respondent

WITH

REVIEW PETITION [C] No.2675 OF 2012

IN

WRIT PETITION [C] NO.210 OF 2012

State of Rajasthan & Anr.

…

Petitioners

Versus

Namit Sharma …

Respondent

J U D G M E N T

A. K. PATNAIK, J.

These are petitions filed under Article 137 of the

Constitution of India for review of the judgment dated

Page 2

JUDGMENT

13.09.2012 of this Court in Writ Petition (C) No.210 of

2012 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the judgment under

review’).

Background Facts:

2.

In Writ Petition (C) No.210 of 2012 filed under Article

32 of the Constitution of India, Namit Sharma, the

respondent herein, had prayed for declaring the provisions

of Sections 12(5), 12(6), 15(5) and 15(6) of the Right to

Information Act, 2005 (for short ‘the Act’) as ultra vires the

Constitution. Sections 12(5), 12(6), 15(5) and 15(6) of

the Act are extracted hereinbelow:

“12(5) The Chief Information Commissioner

and Information Commissioners shall 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.”

“12(6) The Chief Information Commissioner or

an Information Commissioner shall not be a

Member of Parliament or Member of the

Legislature of any State or Union Territory, as

the case may be, or hold any other office of

profit or connected with any political party or

carrying on any business or pursuing any

profession.”

2

Page 3

JUDGMENT

“15(5)

The

State

Chief

Information

Commissioner

and

State

Information

Commissioners shall 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.”

“15(6)

The

State

Chief

Information

Commissioner or a State Information

Commissioner shall not be a Member of

Parliament or Member of the Legislature of any

State or Union Territory, as the case may be, or

hold any other office of profit or connected with

any political party or carrying on any business

or pursuing any profession.”

The grounds taken in the writ petition were that the

provisions of Sections 12(5), 12(6), 15(5) and 15(6) of the

Act laying down the eligibility criteria for appointment of

Central Information Commissioners and State Information

Commissioners were vague and had no nexus with the

object of the Act and were violative of Article 14 of the

Constitution of India and while enacting these provisions,

Parliament had not exercised legislative power in

consonance with the constitutional principles and

guarantees.

3.

After hearing the learned counsel for the respondent-

writ petitioner and the learned Additional Solicitor General

3

Page 4

JUDGMENT

for Union of India, this Court held in the judgment under

review that the provisions of Sections 12(5) and 15(5) of

the Act did not specify the basic qualifications of the

persons to be appointed as Information Commissioners

and only mentioned that the Chief Information

Commissioner and Information Commissioners shall 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. This Court held that the

knowledge and experience in the different fields

mentioned in Section 12(5) and Section 15(5) of the Act

would presuppose a graduate who possesses basi