Namit Sharma v. Union of India (2013) — Review (2014)

The Supreme Court 2013 ruling that Information Commissions are quasi-judicial bodies and must include judicial members at the CIC level. The 2014 review (Union of India v. Namit Sharma) modified some directions while preserving the accountability principle. Pair with Anjali Bhardwaj v. UoI (2019) for the modern IC accountability framework.

Namit Sharma v. Union of India + the 2014 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.

A larger bench reviewed the directions on the Government's plea. The Court:

1. Modified the strict “judicial member must hear every case” requirement.
2. Reaffirmed that the appointment process must consider candidates with judicial / legal training alongside other categories.
3. Anjali Bhardwaj v. UoI (2019) subsequently built on this to require time-bound + transparent appointments.

1. The case is the constitutional foundation for the IC's quasi-judicial status.
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.
• Union of India v. Namit Sharma, (2014) 2 SCC 411, decided 3 September 2013 (review).

In a §19(3) Second Appeal hearing before an IC, if the IC tries to dismiss your appeal on procedural / non-substantive grounds, cite Namit Sharma + Anjali Bhardwaj v. UoI to argue the IC must apply due process and reasoned disposal.

• Supreme Court of India, Namit Sharma v. UoI + 2014 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 (2014 review)
• Case-law database

Last reviewed: 4 May 2026.