Tuesday, April 16, 2013

The objectionable part of namit sharma order stayed

RP(C) 2309/2012 etc. 1
ITEM NO.7+8+12 COURT NO.8 SECTION X
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
REVIEW PETITION (C) NO(s). 2309 OF 2012 IN W.P(C) 210/2012
UNION OF INDIA Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
NAMIT SHARMA Respondent(s)
(With appln(s) for directions, permission to file synopsis and list
of dates and office report)
AND
R.P.(C) NO. 2675/2012 IN W.P.(C) NO. 210/2012
SLP(C) NO. 27347/2012
(With applns. for c/delay in filing counter affidavit, modification,
direction, permission to appear and argue in person, recalling the
Court's order with prayer for interim relief and office report)
Date: 16/04/2013 These Petitions were called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. PATNAIK
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARJAN KUMAR SIKRI
For the parties : Mr. Amarjit Singh Chandhiok, ASG
Mr. Ritesh Kumar, Adv.
Mr. Shweta Gupta, Adv.
Ms. Honey Kumari, Adv.
Ms. Mallika Ahluwalia, Adv.
Mr. Anoopam Prasad, Adv.
Mr. T.A. Khan, Adv.
Mr. Nizam Pasha, Adv.
Mr. B.V. Balaram Das, Adv.
Mr. M.S. Ganesh, Sr. Adv.
Mr. R. Ayyam Perumal, Adv.
Mr. K. Seshachary, Adv.
Dr. Manish Singhvi, AAG
Mr. Amit Lubhaya, Adv.
Ms. Pragati Neekhra, Adv.
Mr. Prashant Bhushan, Adv.
RP(C) 2309/2012 etc. 2
Mr. Pranav Sachdeva, Adv.
Mr. Amit Sharma, Adv.
Ms. Shweta Singh, Adv.
Mr. Irshad Ahmad, AAG
Ms. Pragati Neekhra, Adv.
Mr. Satya Narain Shukla,
Respondent-in-person
UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
I.A.NO. 6 in R.P.(C) No. 2309 of 2012
This is an application for stay of the operation
of the judgment dated 13th September, 2012 passed in
Writ Petition (C) No. 210 of 2012 titled Namit Sharma
Vs. Union of India reported as 2013 (1) SCC 745 during
the pendency of the Review Petition (C) No. 2309 of
2012 titled Union of India Vs. Namit Sharma.
We have heard learned counsel for the parties and
we are not inclined to stay the operation of the entire
judgment in Namit Sharma Vs. Union of India but we
direct that the following directions in sub-paras 108.8
and 108.9 quoted here-in-below shall remain stayed
during the pendency of the Review Petition (C) No. 2309
of 2012.
108.8 The Information Commissions at
the respective levels shall henceforth
work in Benches of two members each.
One of them being a 'judicial member',
while the other an 'expert member'.
The judicial member should be a person
RP(C) 2309/2012 etc. 3
possessing a degree in law, having a
judicially trained mind and experience
in performing judicial functions. A
law officer or a lawyer may also be
eligible provided he is a person who
has practiced law at least for a period
of twenty years as on the date of the
advertisement. Such lawyer should also
have experience in social work. We are
of the considered view that the
competent authority should prefer a
person who is or has been a Judge of
the High Court for appointment as
Information Commissioners. Chief
Information Commissioner at the Centre
or State level shall only be a person
who is or has been a Chief Justice of
the High Court or a Judge of the
Supreme Court of India.
108.9 The appointment of the judicial
members to any of these posts shall be
made 'in consultation' with the Chief
Justice of India and Chief Justices of
the High Courts of the respective
States, as the case may be".
We further direct that wherever Chief Information
Commissioner is of the opinion that intricate questions
of law will have to be decided in a matter coming
before the Information Commissioners, he will ensure
that the matter is heard by a Bench of which at least
one member has knowledge and experience in the field of
Law.
We make it clear that subject to orders that may
be finally passed after hearing the Review Petitions,
the competent authority will continue to fill up the
vacant posts of Information Commissioners in accordance
with the Act and in accordance with the judgment in
RP(C) 2309/2012 etc. 4
W.P.(C) No. 210 of 2012 except sub-paras 108.8 and
108.9 which we have stayed. This is to ensure that
functioning of the Information Commissioners in
accordance with the Act and the Judgment is not
affected during the pendency of the Review Petitions.
We further make it clear that the Chief
Commissioners already functioning will continue to
function until the disposal of the Review Petitions.
I.A.No. 6 is ordered accordingly.
R.P.(C) Nos. 2309, 2675 AND SLP(C) NO. 27347 OF 2012
Heard in part.
List together tomorrow as Part-Heard.
(G. SUDHAKARA RAO)
COURT MASTER
(SHARDA KAPOOR)
COURT MASTER

No comments:

Post a Comment