Namit sharma v. Union of India

Original petitioner Namit Sharma alleged that the eligibility criteria were nonetheless vague and ultra vires the Constitution. In September 2012, the Supreme Court decided Namit Sharma v. Union of India, holding that Information Commissions are judicial tribunals performing “functions of wide magnitude,” including functions of judicial and quasi-judicial nature. The court then pointed out flaws in its previous arguments. The previous judgment had “read into” the Act “missing words” and requirements, as otherwise the relevant sections of the Act “are bound to offend the doctrine of equality” (para. 26). The court took issue with this explanation on two grounds. Although the court acknowledged that there may have been valid concerns about individuals appointed to the Information Commissions not having “the required mind to balance the interests indicated in the Act,” the court concluded it was ultimately “for Parliament to consider” whether appointment required judicial experience