2017 Archives

111. 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 ?

[amp_mcq option1=”All individuals in India including the foreigners residing in India” option2=”All individuals in India, agencies of the State and the foreigners residing in India” option3=”All citizens of India” option4=”All agencies of the State” correct=”option3″]

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.

112. 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 ?

[amp_mcq option1=”National Human Rights Commission” option2=”Lokayukta of Delhi” option3=”A non-Government Organization receiving substantial grant from the Government” option4=”Trustees of PM CARES Fund” correct=”option4″]

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.

113. Which of the following is/are correct ? While inquiring into complaint

Which of the following is/are correct ? While inquiring into complaints under the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993, the National Human Rights Commission can

1. summon and enforce the attendance of witnesses and examine them on oath.
2. seek discovery and production of any document.
3. require any public record or copy thereof from any court or office.

Select the correct answer using the code given below :

[amp_mcq option1=”1 only” option2=”1 and 2 only” option3=”2 and 3 only” option4=”1, 2 and 3″ correct=”option4″]

This question was previously asked in

UPSC CISF-AC-EXE – 2017

Download PDF Attempt Online

The correct answer is D. All three listed powers are vested in the National Human Rights Commission while inquiring into complaints under the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993.

– Section 13 of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993, grants the NHRC the powers of a civil court trying a suit under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, for specific matters.
– Statement 1: Section 13(1)(a) explicitly grants the power to “summoning and enforcing the attendance of any person and examining him on oath”. This power is correct.
– Statement 2: Section 13(1)(b) explicitly grants the power to “requiring the discovery and production of any document”. This power is correct.
– Statement 3: Section 13(1)(d) explicitly grants the power to “requiring the requisitioning of any public record or copy thereof from any Court or office”. This power is correct.
– As all three statements correctly describe powers granted to the NHRC under the Act, all three are correct.

– Other powers granted to the NHRC under Section 13(1) include receiving evidence on affidavits (c), issuing commissions for the examination of witnesses or documents (e), and any other matter which may be prescribed (f).
– These powers enable the NHRC to conduct effective inquiries into human rights violations by compelling attendance, gathering evidence, and accessing relevant records.

114. Which of the following is/are valid ground(s) for challenging the juri

Which of the following is/are valid ground(s) for challenging the jurisdiction of the National Human Rights Commission to inquire into an allegation of human rights violation against a member of the Central Industrial Security Force ?

1. That the same complaint is under investigation by the Human Rights Commission of the State in which the violation is alleged to have been committed
2. That the same complaint is being investigated by a Commission of Inquiry set up by the Central Government
3. That more than one year has expired from the date on which the act constituting violation of human rights is alleged to have been committed

Select the correct answer using the code given below :

[amp_mcq option1=”1 only” option2=”1 and 2 only” option3=”2 and 3 only” option4=”1, 2 and 3″ correct=”option4″]

This question was previously asked in

UPSC CISF-AC-EXE – 2017

Download PDF Attempt Online

The correct answer is D. All three listed grounds are valid reasons for the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) to not inquire into an allegation of human rights violation, as per the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993.

– Section 36 of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 (PHRA) outlines limitations on the NHRC’s inquiry.
– Statement 1: Section 36(2) of the PHRA states that the NHRC shall not inquire into any matter if it is already pending before a State Commission or any other Commission duly constituted under any law for the time being in force. Thus, investigation by a State Human Rights Commission for the same complaint is a valid bar.
– Statement 2: Section 36(2) also includes inquiry by “any other Commission duly constituted under any law”. A Commission of Inquiry set up by the Central Government falls under this category. If the same complaint is being investigated by such a commission, the NHRC cannot inquire. This is a valid bar.
– Statement 3: Section 36(1) of the PHRA explicitly states that the NHRC shall not inquire into any matter after the expiry of one year from the date on which the act constituting the violation of human rights is alleged to have been committed. This is a statutory limitation on the time frame for the complaint.
– Since all three statements describe valid grounds under Section 36 of the PHRA for the NHRC not to inquire, all three are correct.

– Section 36(1) imposes a time limit to ensure that stale complaints are not taken up, focusing the Commission’s resources on recent violations.
– Section 36(2) prevents duplication of inquiries by different commissions or authorities, ensuring efficient use of resources and avoiding conflicting findings.
– The NHRC also has limitations regarding inquiring into matters concerning members of the armed forces (Section 19), where its role is typically restricted to seeking a report from the Central Government. However, the question is about general grounds for challenging jurisdiction applicable even to complaints against police/paramilitary forces like CISF, which fall under the NHRC’s direct inquiry mandate (unlike the ‘armed forces’ as defined in Section 2(1)(a)).

115. What is “m-Power” in relation to the Central Industrial Security Force

What is “m-Power” in relation to the Central Industrial Security Force ?

[amp_mcq option1=”It is the name of the operational network of the Force.” option2=”It is the code governing the powers of the supervisory officers of the Force.” option3=”It is a mobile application which enables the members of the Force to address their pay-related queries and register their grievances while on the move.” option4=”It is the motto of the Force.” correct=”option3″]

This question was previously asked in

UPSC CISF-AC-EXE – 2017

Download PDF Attempt Online

The correct answer is C. “m-Power” in relation to the Central Industrial Security Force is a mobile application designed for its personnel.

– “m-Power” stands for ‘Mobile Application for Personnel On Road/Weekend’ or similar phrasing related to mobility and access.
– It is an initiative by the CISF to leverage technology for the welfare and administrative convenience of its personnel, who are often deployed in remote locations or away from their administrative units.
– The application allows members of the force to access services and information related to their pay, allowances, provident fund, and also provides a platform for registering grievances directly from their mobile devices.

– Such mobile applications are part of broader e-governance and welfare initiatives undertaken by various government departments and forces to improve connectivity and service delivery to their personnel.
– The launch of ‘m-Power’ aimed to empower CISF personnel by providing them with easy access to important information and grievance redressal mechanisms, reducing dependency on traditional administrative channels which can be slow and cumbersome, especially for those on deployment.

116. Who is competent to order transfer of the supervisory officers of the

Who is competent to order transfer of the supervisory officers of the Central Industrial Security Force ?

[amp_mcq option1=”The Director General of the Central Industrial Security Force” option2=”The Inspector General if the transfer is from one unit to another within the same sector” option3=”The Deputy Inspector General if the transfer is from one unit to another within the same zone” option4=”The Central Government” correct=”option1″]

This question was previously asked in

UPSC CISF-AC-EXE – 2017

Download PDF Attempt Online

The correct answer is A. The Director General of the Central Industrial Security Force is competent to order the transfer of supervisory officers.

– Transfer powers within a large force like the CISF are hierarchical. The Director General, being the head of the force, holds the highest authority for transfers.
– While Inspector Generals (IGs) and Deputy Inspector Generals (DIGs) also have transfer powers, these are typically restricted to officers within their respective sectors (for IG) or zones (for DIGs), and often limited to certain ranks (e.g., DIGs transferring Assistant Commandants within their zone, IGs transferring Deputy Commandants within their sector).
– The Director General’s power extends to transferring supervisory officers across the entire force, including higher ranks up to Commandant or even beyond, and across different sectors or zones.
– The Central Government is competent for appointments and transfers at the very apex level (like the Director General himself), but routine transfers of supervisory officers within the force are primarily handled by the DG and delegated authorities.
– Since the question asks who is competent generally for “supervisory officers” without specifying rank or location limits (as options B and C do), the Director General holds the broadest and highest level of competence among the listed options for such transfers.

– The specific transfer powers for different ranks within the CISF are detailed in the force’s internal transfer policy guidelines. These guidelines delineate the authority (DG, Addl DG, IG, DIG) competent to order transfers based on the rank of the officer being transferred and the geographical scope of the transfer.
– The DG’s power is comprehensive, covering transfers that fall outside the limited jurisdictions of IGs and DIGs.

117. As per the provisions of the CISF Rules, 2001, which of the following

As per the provisions of the CISF Rules, 2001, which of the following authorities is deemed to be the Inquiring Authority where there is a complaint of sexual harassment?

[amp_mcq option1=”An officer not below the rank of the Deputy Inspector General in whose jurisdiction the act of sexual harassment is alleged o have been committed” option2=”The authority who had appointed the member of the Force against whom the complaint is made” option3=”The President of the CISF Wives Welfare Association” option4=”The Complaints Committee established in the Central Industrial Security Force for conducting inquiries into -such complaints” correct=”option4″]

This question was previously asked in

UPSC CISF-AC-EXE – 2017

Download PDF Attempt Online

The correct answer is D. As per the CISF Rules, the authority deemed to be the Inquiring Authority for complaints of sexual harassment is the Complaints Committee established for this purpose.

– Following the Supreme Court’s Vishaka guidelines and the enactment of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013, government organizations like the CISF are mandated to establish Internal Complaints Committees (previously known as Complaints Committees) to inquire into allegations of sexual harassment.
– Rule 35A of the CISF Rules, 2001 (inserted later to align with the law) specifically deals with complaints of sexual harassment and mandates that an inquiry into such complaints shall be conducted by an Inquiry Committee constituted for this purpose.
– This Inquiry Committee (or Complaints Committee) is the designated authority, not individual officers based on rank or jurisdiction, or associations like the Wives Welfare Association.

– The Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013, requires every employer to constitute an Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) at each office or administrative unit with 10 or more employees. The structure and composition of the ICC are also specified in the Act.
– The CISF Rules were amended to reflect these statutory requirements, making the established Complaints/Inquiry Committee the competent authority for such inquiries.

118. Which one of the following is not one of the major penalties prescribe

Which one of the following is not one of the major penalties prescribed in the Central Industrial Security Force Rules, 2001?

[amp_mcq option1=”Reduction to a lower stage in the time scale of pay by one stage for a period not exceeding three years, without cumulative effect, and not adversely affecting promotion” option2=”Compulsory retirement” option3=”Dismissal from service” option4=”Reduction to a lower time scale of pay, grade, post or service for a period to be specified in the order of penalty which shall be a bar to the promotion of the enrolled member during such specified period to the time scale of pay, grade, post or service from which he was reduced” correct=”option1″]

This question was previously asked in

UPSC CISF-AC-EXE – 2017

Download PDF Attempt Online

The correct answer is A. Statement A describes a minor penalty, not one of the major penalties prescribed in the Central Industrial Security Force Rules, 2001.

– The Central Industrial Security Force Rules, 2001, classify penalties into Minor Penalties and Major Penalties (Rule 34).
– Major Penalties typically include severe actions like dismissal, removal, compulsory retirement, and significant reduction in rank or pay scale that affects future prospects.
– Minor Penalties include censure, warning, fine, and minor reduction in pay which is explicitly stated as having no cumulative effect or adverse impact on promotion.
– Option A describes “Reduction to a lower stage in the time scale of pay by one stage for a period not exceeding three years, without cumulative effect, and not adversely affecting promotion”. This precisely matches the description of a Minor Penalty under Rule 34(v) of the CISF Rules, 2001.
– Options B (Compulsory retirement), C (Dismissal from service), and D (Reduction to a lower time scale/grade/post/service with a bar to promotion) are explicitly listed as Major Penalties under Rule 34(viii), Rule 34(x), and Rule 34(vii) respectively.

– The distinction between minor and major penalties is important for disciplinary proceedings, as the procedure for imposing major penalties is more elaborate, usually requiring a formal inquiry (as per Rule 36 of CISF Rules).
– Rule 34 lists ten types of penalties, with (i) to (v) being Minor Penalties and (vi) to (x) being Major Penalties.

119. In which of the following circumstances can an enrolled member of the

In which of the following circumstances can an enrolled member of the Central Industrial Security Force be placed under suspension?
1. Where a disciplinary proceeding against him/her is contemplated or pending.
2. Where a case against him/her in respect of any criminal offence is under investigation, inquiry or trial.
3. Where in the opinion of the competent authority, the member of the Force had engaged himselffherself in activities prejudicial to the interest of the security of the State.
Select the correct answer using the code given below:

[amp_mcq option1=”1 only” option2=”2 and 3 only” option3=”1 and 3 only” option4=”1, 2 and 3″ correct=”option4″]

This question was previously asked in

UPSC CISF-AC-EXE – 2017

Download PDF Attempt Online

The correct option is D, as an enrolled member of the Central Industrial Security Force can be placed under suspension in all three listed circumstances according to the CISF Rules.

Rule 32(1) of the Central Industrial Security Force Rules, 2001 (as amended) specifies the grounds for placing a member of the Force under suspension.
Statement 1: Where a disciplinary proceeding against him/her is contemplated or pending. This is a valid ground for suspension under Rule 32(1)(a).
Statement 2: Where a case against him/her in respect of any criminal offence is under investigation, inquiry or trial. This is a valid ground for suspension under Rule 32(1)(b).
Statement 3: Where in the opinion of the competent authority, the member of the Force had engaged himself/herself in activities prejudicial to the interest of the security of the State. This is a valid ground for suspension under Rule 32(1)(c).
Since all three circumstances are listed as grounds for suspension in the CISF Rules, all statements are correct.

Suspension is not a penalty in itself but rather an interim measure. It is usually ordered to prevent the member from influencing the investigation, tampering with evidence, or if their continued presence is considered detrimental to discipline, security, or the public interest while a serious inquiry or trial is ongoing. The period of suspension can be reviewed and extended.

120. In an industrial establishment, no workman can go on strike and no emp

In an industrial establishment, no workman can go on strike and no employer can declare a lock-out within how many days of conclusion of conciliation proceedings?

[amp_mcq option1=”7 days” option2=”15 days” option3=”30 days” option4=”60 days” correct=”option1″]

This question was previously asked in

UPSC CISF-AC-EXE – 2017

Download PDF Attempt Online

The correct option is A. As per the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, no workman can go on strike and no employer can declare a lock-out within 7 days of the conclusion of conciliation proceedings.

Sections 22 and 23 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 prohibit strikes and lock-outs during the pendency of conciliation proceedings and for a specific period thereafter.
Section 22 (Prohibition of strikes and lock-outs in public utility services) and Section 23 (General prohibition of strikes and lock-outs) both contain provisions that prohibit strikes and lock-outs during the pendency of any conciliation proceedings before a conciliation officer or a Board and “seven days after the conclusion of any such proceedings”.
This means that after the conciliation proceedings have concluded (either by settlement, failure report submitted to the government, or reference to a tribunal), there is a cooling-off period of 7 days during which strikes and lock-outs are prohibited.

The purpose of this prohibition and the 7-day period is to provide a window for the parties to reflect on the outcome of conciliation, or for the government to consider further action (like referring the dispute for adjudication) without the pressure of immediate industrial action.