Home  /  Right to Information Act, 2005  /  Section 12

Section 12: Constitution of Central Information Commission

Right to Information Act, 2005 • Official Statutory Text & Practice Guide

Statutory Regulation
Legal Standard
Competent Court / Tribunal
Act 2005
Section 11 All 31 Sections of Right to Information Act, 2005 Section 13

Legal Commentary & Landmark Judgments: Section 12

Section 12 mandates the constitution of the Central Information Commission as the apex autonomous oversight authority, detailing its multi-member composition, high-powered bipartisan selection committee, and the professional qualifications required of Commissioners.

  • Apex Institutional Composition: Under Section 12(1) and 12(2), the Central Information Commission consists of the Chief Information Commissioner (CIC) and up to ten Central Information Commissioners (ICs), vested with autonomous statutory superintendence, direction, and management over the administration of the RTI Act across the Union.
  • Bipartisan High-Powered Selection Committee: Under Section 12(3), the CIC and ICs are appointed by the President of India on the recommendation of a Committee consisting of: (i) the Prime Minister (Chairperson); (ii) the Leader of Opposition in the Lok Sabha; and (iii) a Union Cabinet Minister nominated by the Prime Minister. The explanation clarifies that where no recognized Leader of Opposition exists, the leader of the single largest opposition group is deemed to be the Leader of Opposition.
  • Multi-Disciplinary Qualification Mandate: Section 12(5) requires the CIC and ICs to be persons of eminence in public life with wide knowledge and experience in law, science and technology, social service, management, journalism, mass media, or administration and governance; Section 12(6) imposes strict political disqualifications, barring Members of Parliament, State Legislators, office-holders of political parties, and persons holding offices of profit or carrying on business.
Key Landmark Precedents:
  • Union of India v. Namit Sharma (2013) 10 SCC 359: In review of its earlier 2012 decision, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of Section 12(5); held that while Information Commissions are quasi-judicial tribunals and need not be manned exclusively by judges, the Selection Committee must actively consider persons possessing judicial experience and legal training alongside other fields.
  • Anjali Bhardwaj v. Union of India (2019) 18 SCC 246: The Supreme Court issued mandatory directions requiring the Central Government to ensure absolute transparency in appointments under Section 12: advertising vacancies, publishing search committee norms, uploading shortlisted candidates' bio-data, and completing selection in a time-bound manner to prevent institutional vacancies.
  • Common Cause v. Union of India (2018 SCC OnLine SC 3169): The Supreme Court held that the selection of Information Commissioners must be broad-based and not monopolized by retired civil servants, giving true effect to the diverse multi-disciplinary categories enumerated in Section 12(5).
Courtroom Practice & Strategic Litigation Guidance:

In public interest litigations challenging appointment processes or vacancies in the Central Information Commission, invoke the transparency guidelines established in Anjali Bhardwaj. Scrutinize whether the Selection Committee under Section 12(3) duly convened with the Leader of the Opposition or single largest opposition leader, and whether shortlisting excluded non-bureaucratic disciplines in violation of Section 12(5).

Section 11 All 31 Sections of Right to Information Act, 2005 Section 13