Union of India v. Namit Sharma (Review)
Union of India v. Namit Sharma (Review) (Supreme Court of India, 2014-09-03) (2014) 14 SCC 519 is a ruling on the Right to Information Act, 2005 — Sections 12, 15. Restored Government-nominated IC composition; preserved reasoned-orders requirement. The 2013 directive of judicial-only IC composition was modified.
Holding
Restored Government-nominated IC composition; preserved reasoned-orders requirement.
Ratio
The 2013 directive of judicial-only IC composition was modified. Government may nominate ICs as per the original Act, but the requirement that orders be reasoned and on merits is preserved.
Section(s) applied
- Section 12
- Section 15
Practitioner takeaway
IC composition as in Act; §19(8) reasoned-order standard preserved.
Citation
- Citation: (2014) 14 SCC 519
- Court: Supreme Court of India
- Date: 2014-09-03
- Outcome: disposed
- Reporter / Cause-list: (2014) 14 SCC 519
Why this case matters for citizens
This ruling is part of the 300+ case-law corpus at RTI Wiki Case-law Database. Every named case sets a precedent that you can cite in your own §19(1) First Appeal or §19(3) Second Appeal. Information Commissions and FAAs are bound to consider properly cited authority.
Citizen action steps if your own RTI is being refused on similar grounds
- Day 30 — silence by PIO = deemed refusal under §7(2). File §19(1) First Appeal in 30 days using First Appeal Builder.
- Day 60-90 — if FAA also refuses, file §19(3) Second Appeal to the State Information Commission (or CIC for central authorities).
- Beyond 18 months pending — writ petition under Article 226 to the High Court.
- Parallel CPGRAMS complaint at pgportal.gov.in for service-delivery push.
Citing this ruling in your appeal
Use our Citation Formatter to format the citation correctly. Pair with Bhagat Singh v. CIC (2007) (procedural objections) and Adesh Kumar v. UoI (2014) (irrelevance is not a ground) — these two Delhi HC rulings cover most everyday refusal scenarios.
Related landmark RTI rulings
- CPIO Supreme Court v. Subhash Chandra Agarwal (Constitution Bench) — office of CJI is public authority
- Anjali Bhardwaj v. UoI — IC vacancies + transparency
- Girish Deshpande — §8(1)(j) personal information test
- Bhagat Singh v. CIC — procedural compliance
- Adesh Kumar v. UoI — irrelevance is not a ground