UPSC SO-Steno Archives

21. “Information” under the Right to Information Act, 2005 does not

“Information” under the Right to Information Act, 2005 does not include

records as defined under the Right to Information Act, 2005

any information relating to a private body which cannot be accessed by a public authority

reports of Commissions of Inquiry

data material held in any electronic form

This question was previously asked in

UPSC SO-Steno – 2017

Download PDF Attempt Online

Section 2(f) of the RTI Act defines “information” broadly to include various forms of material held by or under the control of a public authority. The definition explicitly includes:
A) records as defined under the Right to Information Act, 2005: Section 2(f) starts with “any material in any form, including records…”. Records are defined in Section 2(i). So, records are included in the definition of information.
B) any information relating to a private body which cannot be accessed by a public authority: Section 2(f) states that “information relating to any private body which *can be accessed by a public authority* under any other law for the time being in force” is included in the definition of “information”. This implies that information relating to a private body which *cannot* be accessed by a public authority under any other law is *not* included in the definition of “information” under the RTI Act.
C) reports of Commissions of Inquiry: Section 2(f) explicitly includes “reports”.
D) data material held in any electronic form: Section 2(f) explicitly includes “data material held in any electronic form”.
Therefore, information relating to a private body that a public authority cannot access under any other law is the only option that describes something *not* included in the definition of “information”.

– The definition of “information” in Section 2(f) is broad but specific.
– It includes various forms of records and data held by public authorities.
– Information held by private bodies is generally not covered, *unless* a public authority can access such information under some other law.

This provision allows citizens to access information about private bodies if that information is held by a public authority and the public authority itself has the legal power to obtain that information from the private body under existing laws (like regulatory filings, reports required by law, etc.).

22. Which one of the following countries has once again topped the list of

Which one of the following countries has once again topped the list of being the most powerful passport in the world, for the third consecutive year as per Henley Passport Index 2021 ?

Japan

Singapore

South Korea

Syria

This question was previously asked in

UPSC SO-Steno – 2017

Download PDF Attempt Online

The Henley Passport Index ranks passports based on the number of destinations holders can access visa-free. According to the Henley Passport Index published in 2021 (across all quarters of the year), Japan held the top position for the third consecutive year, offering visa-free or visa-on-arrival access to the highest number of destinations worldwide. Singapore was consistently ranked second, often sharing the spot with other countries like South Korea or Germany. Syria was ranked among the lowest on the index.

– The Henley Passport Index ranks passports based on visa-free access.
– Japan consistently ranked highest in the Henley Passport Index throughout 2021.

The Henley Passport Index is based on data from the International Air Transport Association (IATA) and is updated regularly. It is considered a standard reference tool for global mobility. While rankings can shift slightly quarter to quarter or year to year, Japan maintained a strong lead in 2021.

23. “Competent authority” under the Right to Information Act, 2005 does no

“Competent authority” under the Right to Information Act, 2005 does not mean

Chief Minister of Delhi

Speaker in case of Legislative Assembly of Delhi

Chairman in case of Legislative Council of Uttar Pradesh

Vice-President of India in case of Council of States

This question was previously asked in

UPSC SO-Steno – 2017

Download PDF Attempt Online

Section 2(c) of the RTI Act defines “competent authority” for different institutions.
A) Chief Minister of Delhi: The Chief Minister is the head of the executive in Delhi. Section 2(c) lists the Speaker for the Legislative Assembly, Chairman for the Legislative Council/Council of States, Chief Justice for Supreme Court/High Court, President/Governor for other constitutional authorities, Administrator under Art 239, or a person/group authorised by the appropriate Government. The Chief Minister is not listed as a “competent authority” for any institution under Section 2(c).
B) Speaker in case of Legislative Assembly of Delhi: Delhi has a Legislative Assembly. The Speaker of a Legislative Assembly is defined as a competent authority under Section 2(c)(i).
C) Chairman in case of Legislative Council of Uttar Pradesh: Uttar Pradesh has a Legislative Council. The Chairman of a Legislative Council is defined as a competent authority under Section 2(c)(ii).
D) Vice-President of India in case of Council of States: The Vice-President is the ex-officio Chairman of the Council of States (Rajya Sabha). The Chairman of the Council of States is defined as a competent authority under Section 2(c)(ii).

– Section 2(c) provides a specific list of competent authorities for different types of public authorities.
– The list includes heads of legislative bodies, judicial bodies, and constitutional authorities.
– The Chief Minister is not included in this list of competent authorities under the RTI Act.

The competent authority is responsible for matters related to the RTI Act within their respective institutions, such as appointing Public Information Officers and Appellate Authorities.

24. “Right to information” under the Right to Information Act, 2005 does n

“Right to information” under the Right to Information Act, 2005 does not include

inspection of official documents

obtaining information relating to Border Roads Development Board

taking notes from the official files

taking certified copy of a decision of the Court

This question was previously asked in

UPSC SO-Steno – 2017

Download PDF Attempt Online

Section 2(j) of the RTI Act defines “right to information”. This definition describes the *modes* or *ways* information can be accessed.
A) inspection of official documents: Included under Section 2(j)(i) (inspection of work, documents, records).
B) obtaining information relating to Border Roads Development Board: This refers to the *subject matter* of the information sought, not the definition of the “right to information” itself. The right allows citizens to *obtain information* held by public authorities (like the BRDB, if it’s a public authority) using the methods listed in 2(j), but “obtaining information relating to X” is not part of the definition of the *right* itself.
C) taking notes from the official files: Included under Section 2(j)(ii) (taking notes, extracts or certified copies of documents or records).
D) taking certified copy of a decision of the Court: Court decisions are records held by public authorities (courts). Taking certified copies of records is included under Section 2(j)(ii).
The definition in Section 2(j) enumerates the specific methods of access (inspection, taking notes/copies, samples, electronic formats). Option B describes the *subject* of the information, which is not part of this enumerative definition.

– The definition of “right to information” in Section 2(j) describes the means of accessing information (inspection, copying, etc.).
– It does not define the specific subject matter or public authority about which information can be sought.
– Information about public authorities and their activities is generally accessible using the defined modes, unless specifically exempted.

The Border Roads Development Board is a public authority and information relating to it would be accessible under the RTI Act, provided it is not exempt. However, the *act* of obtaining information relating to the BRDB is an *application* of the right, not part of the definition of the right itself.

25. The obligation of a public authority under the Right to Information Ac

The obligation of a public authority under the Right to Information Act, 2005 does not include

publication of all relevant facts while formulating important policies which affect public

providing reasons for its administrative decisions to affected persons

publication of all relevant facts while announcing decisions which affect public

providing information regarding commercial confidence to an applicant except in case of larger public interest

This question was previously asked in

UPSC SO-Steno – 2017

Download PDF Attempt Online

Section 4 of the RTI Act lays down the obligations of public authorities, emphasizing proactive disclosure.
A) publication of all relevant facts while formulating important policies which affect public: This is an obligation under Section 4(1)(c).
B) providing reasons for its administrative decisions to affected persons: This is an obligation under Section 4(1)(d).
C) publication of all relevant facts while announcing decisions which affect public: This is part of the obligation under Section 4(1)(c).
D) providing information regarding commercial confidence to an applicant except in case of larger public interest: Section 8 lists exemptions, meaning a public authority is *not obliged* to provide such information. Section 8(1)(d) specifically exempts information relating to commercial confidence, trade secrets, or intellectual property, unless the public interest in disclosure outweighs the harm. While the public interest clause *allows* disclosure in specific cases, the general stance under Section 8 is one of non-disclosure, not a positive obligation to provide such information. The obligations are primarily defined by Section 4 (proactive disclosure) and Section 7 (responding to requests for non-exempt information). Providing commercially sensitive information is not a general obligation; it is an exception to non-disclosure allowed under the public interest override.

– Public authorities have obligations for proactive disclosure (Section 4) and responding to requests for non-exempt information (Section 7).
– Section 8 lists types of information that public authorities are *not obliged* to disclose.
– Information concerning commercial confidence falls under Section 8(1)(d) as an exempted category.
– The public interest override in Section 8 allows disclosure of otherwise exempt information but does not create a positive obligation to provide such information as a routine matter.

The structure of the Act is that information is accessible unless exempted (Section 8 or 9). The obligation is to provide non-exempt information. Options A, B, and C describe specific actions required of public authorities. Option D describes a scenario related to an exemption, not a general obligation.

26. Who has the right to information under the Right to Information Act, 2

Who has the right to information under the Right to Information Act, 2005 ?

All individuals in India including the foreigners residing in India

All individuals in India, agencies of the State and the foreigners residing in India

All citizens of India

All agencies of the State

This question was previously asked in

UPSC SO-Steno – 2017

Download PDF Attempt Online

Section 3 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 explicitly states: “Subject to the provisions of this Act, all citizens shall have the right to information.” The Act grants the right to information specifically to the citizens of India. It does not extend this right to foreigners, persons of Indian origin who are not citizens, or any other entity like agencies of the state or private bodies themselves.

– The right to information under the RTI Act is granted exclusively to “all citizens” of India.
– Foreign nationals, PIOs, and corporate bodies do not have a direct right to seek information under Section 3.

While companies, associations, or other legal entities may file RTI applications, they typically do so through a citizen representative. Court judgments have reinforced that the right is vested in citizens.

27. The term “public authority” under the Right to Information Act, 2005 d

The term “public authority” under the Right to Information Act, 2005 does not include which one of the following ?

National Human Rights Commission

Lokayukta of Delhi

A non-Government Organization receiving substantial grant from the Government

Trustees of PM CARES Fund

This question was previously asked in

UPSC SO-Steno – 2017

Download PDF Attempt Online

Section 2(h) of the RTI Act defines “public authority”. It includes bodies established by or under the Constitution, by law made by Parliament or State Legislature, by government notification or order, and bodies/NGOs substantially financed by the government.
A) National Human Rights Commission: Established by the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 (an Act of Parliament). It is a public authority under Section 2(h)(ii).
B) Lokayukta of Delhi: Established by the Delhi Lokayukta and Upa-Lokayukta Act, 1995 (an Act of State Legislature). It is a public authority under Section 2(h)(iii).
C) A non-Government Organization receiving substantial grant from the Government: Explicitly covered under Section 2(h)(iv)(b). It is a public authority.
D) Trustees of PM CARES Fund: PM CARES Fund is registered as a public charitable trust. Legal interpretations and court decisions have generally held that it does not meet the definition of “public authority” under Section 2(h) as it is not established by the Constitution or any law, and is not deemed to be owned, controlled, or substantially financed by the appropriate Government in the manner required by the definition.

– A public authority under RTI is defined in Section 2(h).
– The definition covers constitutional bodies, statutory bodies, government-owned/controlled/substantially financed bodies/NGOs.
– PM CARES Fund’s status as a public authority under RTI Act has been legally contested and generally held negatively by courts.

The inclusion of substantially financed NGOs and private bodies whose information can be accessed by a public authority under any other law broadens the scope of the RTI Act beyond traditional government departments. However, bodies not meeting the specific criteria of Section 2(h) are outside its purview.