2017

Information under the Right to Information Act, 2005 cannot be denied on which one of the following grounds/cases ?

[amp_mcq option1=”Information relating to copyright subsisting in the State” option2=”Information is likely to impede investigation or apprehension of an offender” option3=”Information is a trade secret” option4=”Personal information affecting privacy of an individual” correct=”option4″]

The correct answer is D. While “Personal information affecting privacy of an individual” is listed as a ground for denial under Section 8(1)(j), this exemption is subject to a significant proviso: “unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the Appellate Authority is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information”. This means that information, even if personal and affecting privacy, *cannot* be denied if the larger public interest outweighs the potential harm to privacy. This strong public interest override makes it a ground on which information *cannot be universally denied*, unlike potentially more absolute grounds in certain scenarios (though most grounds under Section 8 are also subject to public interest consideration). However, in the context of UPSC questions and interpretation of Section 8(1)(j), the public interest override is heavily emphasized, particularly for information related to public officials performing their duties.

Section 8(1) of the RTI Act lists various grounds for exemption from disclosure. All options A, B, C, and D represent potential grounds for denial under this section. However, the question asks on which ground information *cannot* be denied. This implies looking for a ground that is *not absolute* or where disclosure is mandated under certain conditions despite the initial exemption. The ground of “Personal information affecting privacy of an individual” (Section 8(1)(j)) is explicitly subject to the condition of public interest override, making it a common situation where denial is *not* permissible if public interest is high.

Section 8(1)(d) exempts information including commercial confidence, trade secrets, or intellectual property unless the public interest justifies disclosure. Section 8(1)(h) exempts information which would impede investigation or apprehension of offenders. While these also have nuances, Section 8(1)(j) is perhaps the most frequently debated exemption where the public interest test leads to disclosure even for sensitive information, especially concerning public servants.

According to the provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005, which one of the following statements is correct ?

[amp_mcq option1=”No reasons are required to be given for seeking information.” option2=”Information is to be supplied free of cost after two weeks from the date of making the application.” option3=”Where an application is made to a public authority for information which is held by another public authority, the application must be transferred within one week to that public authority having the information.” option4=”If an information relates to the life of a person, the information must be supplied within one week under section 7(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005.” correct=”option1″]

The correct answer is A. No reasons are required to be given for seeking information.

Section 6(2) of the Right to Information Act, 2005, explicitly states that an applicant making a request for information shall not be required to give any reason for requesting the information. This is a fundamental principle of the Act, enabling citizens to access information without needing to justify their request.
Statement B is incorrect. Information is to be supplied within 30 days normally (Section 7(1)). While fees apply, information is supplied free of cost *only* if it is not provided within the specified time limit (Section 7(6)). Two weeks is not the standard free supply period.
Statement C is incorrect. If an application is transferred to another public authority under Section 6(3), the transfer must be made as expeditiously as possible but *not later than five days* from the date of receipt of the application.
Statement D is incorrect. Where the information sought concerns the life or liberty of a person, the information must be supplied within *forty-eight hours* of the receipt of the request (Section 7(1) proviso).

The RTI Act imposes specific time limits for providing information, generally 30 days, but a shorter 48-hour limit for matters concerning life or liberty. Failure to adhere to these limits without reasonable cause can lead to penalties for the Public Information Officer.

Which of the following statements is/are correct under the Right to Information Act, 2005 ?

• 1. It is not necessary to supply all kinds of information.
• 2. Information pertaining to corruption in Central Reserve Police Force must be supplied.
• 3. Information pertaining to violation of human rights in Intelligence Bureau must be supplied.

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″]

The correct answer is D (1, 2 and 3). All three statements are correct under the Right to Information Act, 2005.

Statement 1 is correct because the RTI Act provides for certain exemptions from disclosure under Sections 8 and 9. Therefore, it is not necessary to supply all kinds of information.
Statement 2 and 3 are correct based on Section 24 of the RTI Act. Section 24 generally exempts certain security and intelligence organisations listed in the Second Schedule from the purview of the Act. However, the proviso to Section 24(4) (for Central organisations) explicitly states that information pertaining to allegations of corruption and human rights violations shall *not* be excluded from the application of the Act. Both the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) and the Intelligence Bureau (IB) are listed in the Second Schedule. Thus, information relating to corruption in CRPF and human rights violations in IB must be supplied under the Act.

The Second Schedule of the RTI Act lists organisations like IB, RAW, Directorate of Enforcement, Narcotics Control Bureau, Border Security Force, CRPF, Indo-Tibetan Border Police, Central Industrial Security Force, National Security Guard, Assam Rifles, Sashastra Seema Bal, etc. The exemption under Section 24 is subject to the crucial exception regarding corruption and human rights violations. For human rights violations, disclosure is permissible only with the approval of the Central or State Information Commission, as the case may be.