Union of India v. Namit Sharma (Review)
On review, the Supreme Court held that Information Commissioners need NOT be judges. It recalled its earlier 2012 ruling — the eligibility criteria in the RTI Act are valid, and changing them is for Parliament to decide.
Issue before the court
Whether Information Commissioners must have judicial qualifications and sit in benches, as an earlier 2012 judgment had directed.
Facts in brief
In 2012, the Supreme Court (in Namit Sharma v. Union of India) had read judicial-qualification requirements into the RTI Act and required Information Commissions to function in benches. The Union of India sought a review of that judgment.
Holding / decision
The review bench recalled the 2012 judgment. It held that the functions of Information Commissions are not judicial powers; the eligibility criteria in Sections 12 and 15 of the RTI Act are valid; and whether judicial experience should be required is a matter for Parliament. Information Commissioners need not be judges.
Information Commissions are not courts and their members need not be judges; the RTI Act’s eligibility provisions stand, and reform of qualifications is a legislative matter.
When you go to an Information Commission with a second appeal, you are not facing a court — it is an accessible, non-judicial body, and the Commissioner need not be a judge.
When to cite this case
On the nature and composition of Information Commissions and the validity of the eligibility provisions.
Later developments / current status
The RTI (Amendment) Act, 2019 later altered the tenure and service conditions of Information Commissioners — a separate, legislative change.
Source & verification
Related FileMyRTI services
Use FindMyPIO to identify your Central or State Information Commission for a second appeal.
Login / Sign up
Login With Google
Continue as GuestOr use your email Address
*We value your trust. Your information remains private and protected with FileMyRTI