Namit Sharma v. Union of India (2012) + 2013 Review

The 2012 ruling that Information Commissions are quasi-judicial bodies exercising judicial-like powers — and the 2013 review that recalled its composition directions as matters for Parliament. The accountability principle survived.

Namit Sharma v. Union of India + the 2013 review

The petitioner challenged the appointment process for Information Commissioners — at that time, almost all Commissioners were retired civil servants without judicial training. The petitioner argued that CIC + SICs are quasi-judicial bodies and must include judicial members.

The Court held:

1. Information Commissions exercise quasi-judicial functions — interpreting §8, balancing public interest, awarding compensation under §19(8)(b), imposing penalty under §20.
2. At least one of the two members hearing a case must be a judicial member.
3. The CIC + SIC selection processes were defective.
4. Several directions were issued for restructuring.

On review, the Court:

1. Recalled the directions requiring judicial members on benches and the two-member composition — holding those choices were for Parliament to decide, not for the Court to mandate.
2. Rejected the 2012 characterisation as well: the Commission “discharges administrative functions, not judicial functions”, and “Information Commissions do not exercise judicial powers”. What survives is the duty of fair procedure as an incident of that administrative function, namely that “the Information Commissions are required to act in a fair and just manner following the procedure laid down in Sections 18, 19 and 20 of the Act”.
3. The later Anjali Bhardwaj v. UoI (15 February 2019) addressed the running problem the 2012 directions gestured at: vacancies and delays.

1. The 2012 judgment is often cited for the IC's quasi-judicial status, a characterisation the 2013 review rejected.
2. In any RTI second-appeal hearing, the citizen can rely on Namit Sharma to argue the IC must apply due process (Maneka Gandhi standard).
3. Combined with Anjali Bhardwaj v. UoI (2019), this gives the citizen the modern accountability arsenal.

• Namit Sharma v. Union of India, (2013) 1 SCC 745, decided 13 September 2012 — full text.
• Review, Union of India v. Namit Sharma, (2013) 10 SCC 359, AIR 2014 SC 122, decided 3 September 2013 (A.K. Patnaik + A.K. Sikri JJ) — full text and our review page.

In a §19(3) Second Appeal hearing, if the Commission tries to dismiss your appeal on procedural or non-substantive grounds, cite what actually survived the review, the Commission's duty to “act in a fair and just manner following the procedure laid down in Sections 18, 19 and 20 of the Act” (Union of India v. Namit Sharma, (2013) 10 SCC 359, para 23), to demand a hearing and a reasoned disposal. Do not cite the recalled quasi-judicial characterisation or the judicial-member directions. Both were recalled on 3 September 2013.

• Supreme Court of India, Namit Sharma v. UoI + 2013 review.
• Right to Information Act, 2005, §12, §13, §15, §19, §20. Full text.

• Anjali Bhardwaj v. UoI — IC accountability
• CPIO SC v. Subhash Agarwal
• Union of India v. Namit Sharma (2013 review)
• Case-law database

Last reviewed: 11 September 2026. Bench corrected to Swatanter Kumar + A.K. Patnaik, verified against indiankanoon.org/doc/19607639. Review correctly dated 2013 and its holding stated as a recall of both the directions and the quasi-judicial characterisation. Review citation restored as (2013) 10 SCC 359, AIR 2014 SC 122. Both judgments verified against Indian Kanoon.