Union Of India vs Namit Sharma on 3 September, 2013
12. The aforesaid consideration by the Committee, in our
view, is no compliance to the direction of the Apex Court at
para 39.5 for the simple reason that there is no formulation
of opinion about any of the candidates for his eminence
in public life or for his knowledge and experience in a
particular field. Had it been a case where the Committee
had mentioned the aforesaid aspects of formulation of opinion
against the respective candidate whose bio-data were placed
before the Committee, it may stand on different footing and
different consideration, but nothing is mentioned for such
purpose. Under these circumstances, we find that the
mandatory procedure of the above referred directions issued
by the Apex Court in case of Union of India Vs. Namit Sharma
Page 13 of 18
C/WPPIL/143/2014 JUDGMENT
(supra) while upholding the constitutional validity of Sections
12(5) and 15(5), which, as referred to herein above was
mandatory, has not been followed. Once, as observed earlier,
a mandatory procedure read down by the Apex Court by way
of an inbuilt mechanism in exercise of the power under
Sections 12(3) and 15(3) read with the provisions of Sections
12(5) and 15(5) of the Act has not been followed, it can be
said that the decision is vitiated of the Committee for
appointment of the persons concerned as the Information
Commissioners.