UNION OF INDIA v. NAMIT SHARMA

The Supreme Court further directed the Central Government and/or the competent authority to frame all D practice and procedure related rules to make working of the Information Commissions effective and consonance with the basic rule of law and such rules be framed with particular reference to Section 27 and 28 of the Act within a period of six months. The Supreme Court E also held that the Commission is a 'judicial tribunal' performing functions of 'judicial' as well as 'quasi-judicial' nature and having the trappings of a Court, unlike a ministerial tribunal which is more influenced and controlled and performs functions akin to the machinery F of administration and thus it will be just, fair and proper that the first appellate authority (i.e. the senior officers to be nominated in terms of Section 5 of the Act of 2005) preferably should be the persons possessing a degree in law or having adequate knowledge and experience in G the field of law. The said judgment of the Supreme Court was challenged in the instant Review Petitions filed under Article 137 of the Constitution. The question which arose for consideration was whether the reasoning and H >-- ~- UNION OF INDIA v. NAMIT SHARMA 101 directions in the judgment under review were at variance A with the clear and simple language employed in the different provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005 and whether the judgment under review suffered from manifest errors of law apparent on the face of the record. Allowing the review petition, the Court B HELD:1. Review of a judgment or order of this Court under. Article 137 of the Constitution is confined to only errors apparent on the face of the record as provided in Order XL Rule 1 of the Supreme Court Rules, 1966. If a C reasoning in the judgment under review is at variance with the clear and simple language in a statute, the judgment under review suffers from a manifest error of law, an error apparent on the face of the record, and is liable to be rectified. Under Order XL of the Supreme D Court Rules, 1966, this Court can review its judgment or order on the ground of error apparent on the face of record and on an application for review can reverse or modify its decision on the ground of mistake of law or fact. [Paras 17, 32] [128-A-C; 146-A] E Commissioner of Sa/es Tax, J & K and Ors. v. Pine Chemicals Ltd. and Ors. (1995) 1 SCC 58: 1994 (5) Suppl. SCR 123 - relied on.

2.1. Sections 12(5) and 15(5) of the Act provide that F Chief Information Commissioner and Information Commissioners shall be persons of eminence in public life with wide knowledge and experience in law, science and technology, social service, management, journalism, mass media or administration and governance. These G provisions of the Act do not provide that the Chief Information Information Commissioner Commissioners shall be persons having judicial experience, training and acumen and yet this Court has held in the judgment under review that for effectively H 102 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 13 S.C.R. A 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. [Para 18] [128-E-G] B D

2.2. Sections 18, 19 and 20 of the Act confer powers on the Information Commission. It is clear from the plain and simple language of Sections 18, 19 and 20 of the Act that the functions of the Information Commissions are c limited to ensuring that a person who has sought information from a public authority in accordance with his right to information conferred under Section 3 of the Act is not denied S\ICh information except in accordance with the provisions of the Act. Section 2(j) defines "Right to Information" conferred on all citizens under Section 3 of the Act to mean the right to information accessible under the Act, "which is held by or under the control of any public authority". While deciding whether a citizen should or should not get a particular information "which is held E by or under the control of any public authority", the Information Commission does not decide a dispute between two or more parties concerning their legal rights other than their right to get information in possession of a public authority. This function obviously is not a judicial function, but an administrative function conferred by the Act on the Information Commissions. [Paras 19, 20] [129- A; 134-H; 135-A-F] F

2.3. In the judgment under review, this Court has held that there is a /is to be decided by the Information Commission inasmuch as the request of a party seeking information is to be allowed or to be disallowed and hence requires a judicial mind. But the tis that the Information Commission has to decide was only with regard to the information in possession of a public G H l. ).... )..__ t~ ~ +- .J.. --< ~- ~- UNION OF INDIA v. NAMIT SHARMA 103 authority and the Information Commission was required A to decide whether the information could be given to the person asking fo.r it or should be withheld in public interest or any other interest protected by the provisions of the Act. The Information Commission, therefore, while deciding this /is does not really perform a judicial function, B but performs an administrative function in accordance with the provisions of the Act. [Para ~1] [135-F-H; 136-A] D

2.4. In the judgment under review, this Court has also held that the Information Commission decides matters which may affect the rights of third parties and hence c there is requirement of judicial mind. To protect the rights of third parties, Section 11 of the Act provides that where a Central Public Information Officer or a State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, intends to disclose any information or record or part thereof, may on a request made under the Act, which relates to or has been supplied by a third party and bas been treated as confidential by that third party, a written notice will have to be given to such third party inviting such party to make a submission in writing or orally, regarding whether the E information should be disclosed, and such submission of the third party can be kept in view while taking a decision about disclosure of the information. The decision taken by the Central Public lnformt; ttion Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may F be, under Section 11 of the Act is appealable under Section 19 of the Act before the Information Commission and when the Information Commission decides such an appeal, it decides only whether or not the information should be furnished to the citizen in view of the objection G of the third party. Here also the Information Commission does not decide the rights of a third party but only whether the information which is held by or under the control of a public authority in relation to or supplied by that third party could be furnished to a citizen under the H 104 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 13 S.C.R. A provisions of the Act. Hence, the Information Commission discharges administrative functions, not judicial functions. [Para 22) [136-E"H; 137-A-E] 8 C 0

2.5. 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 Sections 18, 19 and 20 of the Act. But this does not mean that the Information Commissioners are like Judges or Justices who must have judicial experience, training and acumen. [Para 23] (137-F] Harinagar Sugar Mills Ltd. v. Shyam Sunder Jhunjhunwala and Others AIR 1961 SC 1669: 1962 SCR 339 - relied on.