Differences
This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
| — | cases:uoi-v-namit-sharma-review-2013-sc [2026/08/26 22:45] (current) – created - external edit 127.0.0.1 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| + | {{htmlmetatags> | ||
| + | |||
| + | ====== Union of India v. Namit Sharma (Review) ====== | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | {{ : | ||
| + | |||
| + | <WRAP center round info 95%> | ||
| + | **Quick Reply:** On review (3 September 2013), the Supreme Court **recalled the core of its own Namit Sharma directions**: | ||
| + | </ | ||
| + | |||
| + | <WRAP center round info 95%> | ||
| + | **Supreme Court of India** · 2013-09-03 · (2013) 10 SCC 359 · **★ Landmark** | ||
| + | </ | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | **Review allowed in part: the judicial-member and two-member-bench directions of the principal judgment are recalled.** | ||
| + | |||
| + | //The Commission works as the Act made it — Parliament' | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===== Case details ===== | ||
| + | |||
| + | ^ Court | Supreme Court of India | | ||
| + | ^ Decided | 2013-09-03 | | ||
| + | ^ Citation | (2013) 10 SCC 359 | | ||
| + | ^ Bench | A.K. Patnaik, Arjan Kumar Sikri | | ||
| + | ^ Petitioner | Union of India | | ||
| + | ^ Respondent | Namit Sharma | | ||
| + | ^ RTI Act sections | §12, §15, §16 | | ||
| + | ^ Outcome | Partly allowed | | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===== Outcome ===== | ||
| + | |||
| + | Review of Namit Sharma — two-member judicial-bench rule relaxed; Commissions allowed broader composition. | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===== What led here ===== | ||
| + | |||
| + | * **13 September 2012** — *Namit Sharma v. Union of India*, (2013) 1 SCC 745: a two-judge bench read the Information Commissions as judicial tribunals and directed that they work in **benches of two, one member being of judicial background** ([[/ | ||
| + | * The Union sought review; in **April 2013** an interim stay let sitting Chief Information Commissioners remain in office while the review was pending. | ||
| + | * **3 September 2013** — this judgment, by the same bench (Patnaik and Sikri JJ.), confining itself to errors apparent on the record. | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===== What the review held ===== | ||
| + | |||
| + | * The **judicial-qualification requirement is recalled** — the eligibility criteria in §§12(5) and 15(5) stand as enacted; reading judges-only into them was error. | ||
| + | * The **two-member bench rule is relaxed** — Commissions may be constituted and hear matters in broader combinations. | ||
| + | * **Separation-of-powers ground:** whether Commissions should have judicial members is a matter **for Parliament to decide**, not for the court to write into the statute. | ||
| + | * **Sitting Commissioners continue** in office — the transition was not to unseat anyone. | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===== Why it matters ===== | ||
| + | |||
| + | * It is the reason commissions today sit with combinations that include no judicial member, without objection. | ||
| + | * It is a clean statement of the **review jurisdiction' | ||
| + | * For the appointment debates that recur (vacancies, tenure after the 2019 amendment), the review is the anchor: the design question belongs to Parliament. | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===== Ratio decidendi ===== | ||
| + | |||
| + | The directions in the principal judgment requiring judicially qualified members and two-member benches are recalled; it is for Parliament to prescribe the composition of the Information Commissions. | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===== Keywords ===== | ||
| + | |||
| + | Information Commission, review, Namit Sharma, bench composition | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===== This case cites ===== | ||
| + | |||
| + | * [[/ | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===== Later rulings that cite this case ===== | ||
| + | |||
| + | * [[/ | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===== This ruling overruled / modified ===== | ||
| + | |||
| + | * [[/ | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===== Similar cases in the corpus ===== | ||
| + | |||
| + | //These rulings have the closest editorial ratio to this case — computed by tf-idf cosine similarity over ratio, keywords and Act sections. Useful starting points if you are researching the same point of law.// | ||
| + | |||
| + | * [[/ | ||
| + | * [[/ | ||
| + | * [[/ | ||
| + | * [[/ | ||
| + | * [[/ | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===== Related ===== | ||
| + | |||
| + | * [[https:// | ||
| + | * [[https:// | ||
| + | * [[https:// | ||
| + | * [[https:// | ||
| + | * [[https:// | ||
| + | * [[: | ||
| + | * [[: | ||
| + | * [[: | ||
| + | * [[:act|The RTI Act, 2005 — annotated]] | ||
| + | * [[https:// | ||
| + | * [[/book|The RTI Playbook book]] | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===== FAQs ===== | ||
| + | ==== Did the review overrule Namit Sharma entirely? ==== | ||
| + | No — it is a review, not an overruling: the directions on bench composition and judicial members were recalled; the characterisation of the Commission' | ||
| + | ==== So can a single non-judicial member decide my second appeal? ==== | ||
| + | Post-review, | ||
| + | ==== What happened after? ==== | ||
| + | The 2019 amendment and the RTI Rules, 2019 changed tenure and salaries; the composition question has remained with Parliament, as the review held — see [[: | ||
| + | |||
| + | <WRAP center round alert 95%> | ||
| + | **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 · verified 27 August 2026 against indiankanoon.org/ | ||
| + | |||
| + | {{tag> | ||