| Headnote |
Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 137 - Review under )-.. - Held: Is confined to only errors apparent on the face of the record - On an application for review, the Supreme Court can reverse or modify its decision on the ground of mistake of law or fact - In the instant case, as the judgment under review Dsuffered from mistake of law, directions and declarations in the judgment under review recalled - Supreme Court Rules, 1966 - Order XL.Right to Information Act, 2005 - ss. 12(5) and 15(5) - Appointment of Central Information Commissioner I Information Commissioner - Eligibility criteria - ss. 12(5) and 15(5) providing that Chief Information Commissioner and Information Commissioners shall be persons with eminence in public life with wide knowledge and experience in law, F science and technology, social service, management, journalism, mass media or administration and governance - Constitutional validity of ss.12(5) and 15(5) - Upheld in the judgment under review, but with the rider that the expression ... 'knowledge and experience' appearing in the provisions would mean and include a basic degree in the respective field and the experience gained thereafter; and that appointments of legally qualified, judicially trained and experienced persons .~ - would certainly manifest in more effective serving of the ends of justice as well as ensuring better administration of justice by the Information Commission - Held: ss.12(5) and 15(5) are A not ultra vires the Constitution - Said provisions, however, do not prescribe any basic qualification in the respective fields of work - In the judgment under review, missing words were "read into" ss.12(5) and 15(5) and it was held that a basic """" - degree in the respective field was required - This "reading B into" the provisions of ss. 12(5) and 15(5), words which the Parliament has not intended is contrary to the principles of statutory interpretation - The court could not correct or make up for any deficiencies or omissions in the language of the statute - ss.12(5) and 15(5) do not provide that the Chief information Commissioner and Information Commissioners shall be persons having judicial experience, training and acumen - Yet, in the judgment under review, it was held that for effectively performing the functions and exercising the powers of the Information Commission, there is a requirement of a judicial mind and therefore persons eligible for __.. appointment should preferably have judicial background and possess judicial acumen and experience - Such direction amounted to encroachment in the field of legislation - Since Information Commissions do not exercise judicial powers, the E constitutional principles of separation of powers and independence of judiciary cannot be relied upon to direct that they must be manned by persons with judicial training, ' experience and acumen or former Judges of the High Court . ' or the Supreme Court - Interpretation of Statute. Right to Information Act, 2005 - ss. 12(5) and 15(5) - ~ Matter involving intricate questions of law - Duty of the Chief Information Commissioner - Held: Wherever, the Chief Information Commissioner is of the opinion that intricate questions of law will have to be decided in a matter coming G up before the Information Commission, he will ensure that the .._. matter is heard by an Information Commissioner who has wide knowledge and experience in the field of law .Right to Information Act, 2005 - ss. 12(6) and 15(6)- Appointment of Chief Information Commissioner/Information Commissioner - Disqualification provision u/ss.12(6) and 15(6) - Interpretation and effect of - Held: ss. 12(6) and 15(6) do not debar a Member of Parliament or Member of the Legislature of any State or Union Territory, as the case may B be, or a person holding any other office of profit or connected with any political party or carrying on any business or pursuing any profession from being considered for appointment as Chief Information Commissioner/Information Commissioner - But after such person is appointed as Chief Information c Commissioner or Information Commissioner, he has to discontinue as Member of Parliament or Member of the Legislature of any State or Union Territory, or discontinue to hold any other office of profit or remain connected with any political party or carry on any business or pursue any 0 profession during the period he functions as Chief Information Commissioner/Information Commissioner. Right to Information Act, 2005 - ss. 12(3) and 15(3) - Committee u/ss. 12(3) and 15(3) for appointment of Chief Information Commissioner/Information Commissioners - Role and duty of - Held: The Committee while making recommendations for such appointment must mention against the name of each candidate recommended, the facts to indicate his eminence in public life, his knowledge in the particular field and his experience in the particular field and these facts must be accessible to the citizens as part of their right to information under the Act after the appointment is made. Right to Information Act, 2005 - ss. 18, 19 and 20 - Functions of the Information Commission - Nature of - Held: The Information Commission discharges administrative functions, not judicial functions - While performing the administrative functions, however, the Information Commissions are required to act in a fair and just manner following the procedure laid down in ss. 18, 19 and 20 - But this does not mean that the Information Commissioners are A like Judges or Justices who must have judicial experience, training and acumen. Right to Information Act, 2005 - ss. 27 and 28 - Direction given in the judgment under review, to the Central B Government and/or the competent authority to frame practice and procedure related rules within a period of six months - Challenge to - Held: The direction is patently erroneous since the use of word "may" in ss. 27 and 28 make it clear that the Parliament has left it to the discretion of the rule making c authority to make rules to carry out the provisions of the Act - Hence, no mandamus can be issued to the rule making authority to make the rules either within a specific time or in a particular manner- The Court cannot direct the rule making authority to make the rules where the Legislature confers D discretion on the rule making authority to make rules. |
