In BCAJ of October 2012, I had reported the Order of the Supreme Court in the writ petition in the matter of Namit Sharma vs. Union of India decided on 13-09-2012.
The said order had annihilated RTI operations in India. It was criticised by a large number of RTI activists, many retired judges and also by the Government itself. In BCAJ of November 2012, I had reported that the Government has applied for its review. Mr. Shailesh Gandhi and Mrs. Aruna Roy had intervened in this review petition.
Now the said review petition has been heard and the judgment dated 03-09-2013 (of 55 pages) is delivered by two judges, Justice A. K. Sikri and A. K. Patnaik (who was also one of the two judges in the writ along with Justice S. P. Sampath Kumar).
The Supreme Court held as under:
32. Under Order XL of the Supreme Court Rules, 1966 this court can review its judgment or order on the ground of error apparent on the face of record and on an application for review can reverse or modify its decision on the ground of mistake of law or fact. As the judgment under review suffers from mistake of law, we allow the Review Petitions, recall the directions and declarations in the judgment under review and dispose of Writ Petition (C) No. 210 of 2012 with the following declarations and directions:
(i) We declare that sections 12(5) and 15(5) of the Act are not ultra vires the Constitution.
(ii) We declare that sections 12(6) and 15(6) of the Act do not debar a Member of Parliament or Member of the Legislature of any State or Union Territory, as the case may 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 or Information Commissioner, but after such person is appointed as Chief Information Commissioner or Information Commissioner, he has to discontinue as Member of Parliament or Member of the Legislature of any State or Union Territory, or discontinue to hold any other office of profit or remain connected with any political party or carry on any business or pursue any profession during the period he functions as Chief Information Commissioner or Information Commissioner.
(iii) We direct that only persons of eminence in public life with wide knowledge and experience in the fields mentioned in sections 12(5) and 15(5) of the Act be considered for appointment as Information Commissioner and Chief Information Commissioner.
(iv) We further direct that persons of eminence in public life with wide knowledge and experience in all the fields mentioned in sections 12(5) and 15(5) of the Act, namely, law, science and technology, social service, management, journalism, mass media or administration and governance, be considered by the Committees u/s. 12(3) and 15(3) of the Act for appointment as Chief Information Commissioner or Information Commissioners.
(v) We further direct that the Committees u/s. 12(3) and 15(3) of the Act while making recommendations to the President or to the Governor as the case may be, for appointment of Chief Information Commissioner and Information Commissioners must mention against the name of each candidate recommended, the facts to indicate his eminence in public life, his knowledge in the particular field and his experience in the particular field and these facts must be accessible to the citizens as part of their right to information under the Act after the appointment is made.
(vi) We also direct that wherever Chief Information Commissioner is of the opinion that intricate questions of law will have to be decided in a matter coming 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.
[Review petition (C) No. 2309 and (c) No. 2675 of 2012 in Writ Petition (C) No. 210 of 2012: State of Rajasthan & Anr vs. Namit Sharma, decided on 03-09-2013]
