no way to compare when less than two revisions
Differences
This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
| — | cases:uoi-v-namit-sharma-review-2013-sc [2026/05/03 08:32] (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%> | ||
| + | **Supreme Court of India** · 2013-09-03 · (2013) 10 SCC 359 · **★ Landmark** | ||
| + | </ | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | **Review of Namit Sharma — two-member judicial-bench rule relaxed; Commissions allowed broader composition. Relaxes the earlier Namit Sharma requirement of.** | ||
| + | |||
| + | //Relaxes the earlier Namit Sharma requirement of judicial-only benches for Information Commissions.// | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===== 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. | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===== Ratio decidendi ===== | ||
| + | |||
| + | The 2012 Namit Sharma directions requiring every bench of the Information Commission to include a judicial member are relaxed. Commissions may be constituted with non-judicial members, but must follow fair procedure. | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===== 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:// | ||
| + | |||
| + | <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 · last reviewed 21 April 2026.// | ||
| + | |||
| + | {{tag> | ||