Important Supreme Court Decisions on RTI Act- Part VIII
Article
Important
Supreme Court Decisions on RTI Act- Part VIII
Constitutional
validity of the provisions dealing with the eligibility criteria for appointment
to the posts of Chief Information Commissioners and Information Commissioners:
In the matter of Namit Sharma
Petitioner Versus Union of India Writ Petition (Civil) No. 210 of 2012 the
petitioner has questioned the constitutional validity of sub-Sections (5) and
(6) of Section 12 and sub-Sections (5) and (6) of Section 15 of the Act of 2005.
These provisions primarily deal with the eligibility criteria for appointment
to the posts of Chief Information Commissioners and Information Commissioners,
both at the Central and the State levels. The Supreme Court has held as under:
After elaborate discussion and
reasons recorded, the Supreme Court passed the following order and directions:
1. The writ petition is 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 law at 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 empaneled 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.
Comments
Post a Comment