SC admits mistake, recalls its verdict on Info Commissioners

The bench said that Information Commissions have many times passed orders which are beyond the provisions of the transparency act

Press Trust of India New Delhi
Last Updated : Sep 03 2013 | 6:33 PM IST
In a rare action, the Supreme Court today recalled an earlier order admitting that it had committed a "patent error" by directing that only sitting or retired high court chief justices or an apex court judge can head information commissions.

Conceding that its Sep 13, 2012 verdict, directing amendment in Right to Information Act for appointment of judicial members, encroached upon the legislative domain, the apex court said that its judgement "suffers from mistake of law".

A bench of justices A K Patnaik and S K Sikri recalled the slew of directions passed by the apex court last year.

Also Read

"As the judgement under review suffers from mistake of law, we allow the review petitions, recall the directions and declarations in the judgement under review," the bench said.

"Legislature confers discretion on the rule making authority to make rules. In the judgement under review, therefore, this Court made a patent error in directing the rule making authority to make rules within a period of six months," it said and recalled the verdict which was written by Justice Swatanter Kumar, who has since retired.

The bench said that Information Commissions have many times passed orders which are beyond the provisions of the transparency act , which prompted the apex court to pass direction for appointment of judicial members in the Commissions.

"This experience of the functioning of the Information Commissions prompted this Court to issue the directions in the judgement under review to appoint judicial members in the Information Commissions.

"But it is for Parliament to consider whether appointment of judicial members in the Commissions will improve the functioning of the Information Commissions and as Sections 12(5) and 15(5) of the Act do not provide for appointment of judicial members in the Information Commissions, this direction was an apparent error," the bench said.
*Subscribe to Business Standard digital and get complimentary access to The New York Times

Smart Quarterly

₹900

3 Months

₹300/Month

SAVE 25%

Smart Essential

₹2,700

1 Year

₹225/Month

SAVE 46%
*Complimentary New York Times access for the 2nd year will be given after 12 months

Super Saver

₹3,900

2 Years

₹162/Month

Subscribe

Renews automatically, cancel anytime

Here’s what’s included in our digital subscription plans

Exclusive premium stories online

  • Over 30 premium stories daily, handpicked by our editors

Complimentary Access to The New York Times

  • News, Games, Cooking, Audio, Wirecutter & The Athletic

Business Standard Epaper

  • Digital replica of our daily newspaper — with options to read, save, and share

Curated Newsletters

  • Insights on markets, finance, politics, tech, and more delivered to your inbox

Market Analysis & Investment Insights

  • In-depth market analysis & insights with access to The Smart Investor

Archives

  • Repository of articles and publications dating back to 1997

Ad-free Reading

  • Uninterrupted reading experience with no advertisements

Seamless Access Across All Devices

  • Access Business Standard across devices — mobile, tablet, or PC, via web or app

More From This Section

First Published: Sep 03 2013 | 6:30 PM IST

Next Story