Namit Sharma v. Union of India
Quick Reply: On 13 September 2012 the Supreme Court held that Information Commissions are judicial tribunals and directed that they sit in two-member benches including a judicial member. On review in Union of India v. Namit Sharma, (2013) 10 SCC 359, decided 3 September 2013, the Court recalled those directions and declarations altogether, holding that Information Commissions “do not exercise judicial powers and actually discharge administrative functions”. Do not cite the 2012 directions as good law.
Supreme Court of India · 2012-09-13 · (2013) 1 SCC 745 · ★ Landmark
Qualification and composition of Information Commissions revisited, and the two-member judicial-bench directions recalled in full on review in 2013.
Case details
| Court | Supreme Court of India |
|---|---|
| Decided | 2012-09-13 |
| Citation | (2013) 1 SCC 745 |
| Bench | Swatanter Kumar (author), A.K. Patnaik |
| Petitioner | Namit Sharma |
| Respondent | Union of India |
| RTI Act sections | §12, §15 |
| Outcome | Partly allowed |
Outcome
The writ petition was partly allowed and directions were issued requiring judicial members on Information Commission benches. Those directions were recalled in full by the review of 3 September 2013.
Ratio decidendi
Information Commissions exercise quasi-judicial functions, and the initial ruling required judicial-benched two-member panels. On review in Union of India v. Namit Sharma, (2013) 10 SCC 359, decided 3 September 2013, the Court recalled these directions and declarations altogether, holding that Information Commissions “do not exercise judicial powers and actually discharge administrative functions”, so the judicial-member directions were an “apparent error”. Do not cite the 2012 directions as good law.
Keywords
Information Commission, appointment, qualifications, §12, §15
Later rulings that cite this case
- Union of India v. Namit Sharma (Review) (SC 2013)
- Anjali Bhardwaj v. Union of India (SC 2019)
Overruled by / modified by
This ruling has been overruled, modified, or substantially diluted by later authority. See:-
- Union of India v. Namit Sharma (Review) (SC 2013)
Similar cases in the corpus
- Union of India v. Namit Sharma (Review) (SC 2013)
- Judicial Academies under RTI — CIC (CIC 2020)
- Judicial-delay records — SC (SC 2023)
Related
Editorial summary, not a certified report. The ratio here is an editorial compression. Before citing this ruling in a PIO order, FAA speaking order, or any appellate filing, verify against the full reported decision. RTI Wiki is not a legal service.
Editorial summary · bench, sections and the effect of the 2013 review corrected against indiankanoon.org/doc/19607639 and indiankanoon.org/doc/47938967 · last reviewed 11 September 2026.