Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, a public-spirited citizen, filed a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution directly before the Supreme Court, challenging the constitutional validity of Sections 12(5), 12(6), 15(5), and 15(6) of the Right to Information Act, 2005. These provisions prescribe the eligibility criteria for appointment of Chief Information Commissioners and Information Commissioners at the Central and State levels. The petitioner contended that the criteria are vague and general, lacking specific qualifications, and that they do not require judicial expertise or legal acumen, despite the fact that the Information Commissioners exercise judicial and quasi-judicial functions, including penal powers. The petitioner argued that the broad and undefined terms like 'social service' and 'mass media' render the provisions arbitrary and open to abuse, thereby violating the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 16, and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. The petitioner further submitted that consistent with various Supreme Court decisions, quasi-judicial bodies must have judicial members to ensure effective and independent adjudication. The petitioner sought a declaration that the impugned provisions are unconstitutional or, in the alternative, that they should be read down to incorporate the requirement of judicial membership. The Supreme Court, in its discussion, highlighted the importance of the right to information as an integral part of freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a). It reiterated the power of judicial review under Article 13 and the role of courts as sentinels on the qui vive to protect fundamental rights. The court noted that any law must pass the test of constitutionality, which is a formal test of rationality, and outlined the grounds on which a law may be declared unconstitutional, including contravention of fundamental rights and lack of legislative competence. The court referred to several precedents on judicial review and the supremacy of the Constitution. The excerpt of the judgment does not contain a final decision or operative order; it sets out the preliminary observations and the petitioner's arguments, leaving the constitutional challenge to be adjudicated further.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Right to Information - Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution - Right to freedom of speech and expression includes right to impart and receive information, essential for democracy and good governance. The Supreme Court previously held that democracy requires well-informed citizens. (Paras 1-2) B) Judicial Review - Power and Scope under Article 13 - The Constitution confers power of judicial review; courts act as sentinel on the qui vive to protect fundamental rights. Every law must pass the test of constitutionality, which is a formal test of rationality. The Constitution is supreme, not Parliament. (Paras 7-9) C) Statutory Interpretation - Eligibility for Quasi-Judicial Appointments - Sections 12(5), (6), 15(5), (6) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 - These provisions set out eligibility criteria for Information Commissioners, requiring persons of eminence with wide knowledge in specified fields but no specific legal qualifications. The petitioner challenges them as vague and unconstitutional, arguing that adjudicatory functions necessitate judicial expertise. (Paras 5-6) D) Constitutional Validity - Grounds of Unconstitutionality - A law may be struck down if it contravenes fundamental rights, exceeds legislative competence, or violates mandatory constitutional provisions. The court referenced D.D. Basu's summary of grounds. (Paras 10-11) E) Administrative Law - Quasi-Judicial Bodies - Requirement of Judicial Expertise - Supreme Court precedents mandate that tribunals exercising judicial functions must have judicial members; the Information Commission exercises adjudicatory and penal powers, thus requiring legal acumen. The court is examining this contention. (Paras 4, 8)
Issue of Consideration
Whether Sections 12(5), 12(6), 15(5), and 15(6) of the Right to Information Act, 2005, which prescribe eligibility criteria for appointment of Chief Information Commissioners and Information Commissioners, are unconstitutional for being vague, arbitrary, and for not requiring judicial expertise, thereby violating Articles 14, 16, and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.
Final Decision
Decision not clearly stated
Law Points
- Legal points not extracted
- right to information as a facet of Article 19(1)(a)
- judicial review power under Article 13
- grounds of unconstitutionality include contravention of fundamental rights
- legislative competence
- and violation of mandatory constitutional provisions
- quasi-judicial bodies must have judicial members for effective adjudication
