2019-20

Consider the following statements with reference to the penalties under the RTI Act, 2005:

• 1. As mentioned in Section 20(1), the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission shall impose a penalty of two hundred and fifty rupees each day till application is received or information is furnished, however, the total amount of such penalty shall not exceed twenty five thousands.
• 2. As the case may be, the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard before any penalty is imposed.

Which of the above statements is/are correct?

[amp_mcq option1=”1 only” option2=”2 only” option3=”Both 1 and 2″ option4=”Neither 1 nor 2″ correct=”option3″]

Both statements 1 and 2 are correct regarding the penalties under the RTI Act, 2005.

Section 20(1) of the RTI Act, 2005 specifies that the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission can impose a penalty of two hundred and fifty rupees for each day of delay, up to a maximum of twenty-five thousand rupees, if the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, without any reasonable cause, refused to receive an application, has not furnished information within the specified time, malafidely denied the request, knowingly given incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroyed information which was the subject of the request or obstructed in any manner in furnishing the information.

Section 20(1) also mandates that the concerned Public Information Officer shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard before any penalty is imposed on them. This ensures due process is followed. Section 20(2) also provides for disciplinary action against the concerned officer by recommending the same to the competent authority.

The RTI Week is celebrated every year during

[amp_mcq option1=”5th-12th September” option2=”5th-12th October” option3=”5th-12th November” option4=”5th-12th December” correct=”option2″]

The RTI Week is celebrated every year during 5th-12th October.

The Right to Information Act, 2005, was enacted on 15th June 2005 and came into full force on 12th October 2005. Therefore, the week leading up to and including October 12th is celebrated as RTI Week to commemorate the implementation of the Act and promote awareness about it.

The celebration of RTI Week serves to raise public awareness about the right to information and its importance in ensuring transparency and accountability in governance. Various events, workshops, and campaigns are organized during this week by government bodies, civil society organizations, and educational institutions across the country.

Who among the following is not in the committee to recommend for the appointment of the Chief Information Commissioner and Information Commissioner by the President of India?

[amp_mcq option1=”The Prime Minister, who shall be the Chairperson of the committee” option2=”The Leader of Opposition in the Lok Sabha” option3=”A Union Cabinet Minister to be nominated by the Prime Minister” option4=”The Chief Justice of India” correct=”option4″]

As per Section 12(3) of the RTI Act, 2005, the committee that recommends the appointment of the Chief Information Commissioner and Information Commissioners consists of the Prime Minister (Chairperson), the Leader of Opposition in the Lok Sabha, and a Union Cabinet Minister nominated by the Prime Minister. The Chief Justice of India is not a member of this committee.

The composition of the selection committee for the Chief Information Commissioner and Information Commissioners is explicitly defined in the RTI Act, comprising key political figures to ensure transparency and consensus in appointments.

Similar committees involving the Prime Minister, Leader of Opposition, and a Minister are also involved in the appointment processes for heads of other statutory bodies like the Central Vigilance Commission. This composition aims to involve both the ruling party and the opposition in crucial appointments.

Consider the following statements with respect to the ‘third party information’ under the RTI Act, 2005:

• 1. The PIO can disclose the confidential information supplied by a third party without inviting the third party to make submission in the matter.
• 2. The third party has a right to make an appeal to the Department Appellate Authority against the decision of the PIO.
• 3. If not satisfied with the decision of the Department Appellate Authority, a second appeal can be made to the concerned Information Commission.
• 4. The PIO cannot disclose third party information unless the procedure prescribed in Section 11.

Which of the above statements are correct?

[amp_mcq option1=”1, 2 and 3″ option2=”2, 3 and 4″ option3=”1, 2 and 4″ option4=”1, 3 and 4″ correct=”option2″]

Statement 1 is incorrect because Section 11(1) of the RTI Act requires the PIO to give notice to the third party and invite their submission before disclosing confidential third party information. Statements 2 and 3 are correct as Section 11(3) and Section 19 establish the right of the third party to file a first appeal with the Department Appellate Authority (FAA) and a second appeal with the Information Commission against the PIO’s decision. Statement 4 is correct as Section 11 outlines the mandatory procedure for the PIO before disclosing such information. Therefore, statements 2, 3, and 4 are correct.

Section 11 of the RTI Act lays down a specific procedure for handling requests involving confidential information supplied by a third party, including mandatory notice to the third party and providing them with an opportunity to make submissions. The third party is also granted the right to appeal against the PIO’s decision to disclose the information.

The third party procedure under Section 11 balances the applicant’s right to information with the third party’s interest in protecting confidential information. The decision of the PIO regarding third party information must be made within 40 days of receiving the initial request (extending the usual 30-day limit). The third party has a right to appeal against the disclosure decision.

Which one of the following is not correct pertaining to the exemption from disclosure of information?

[amp_mcq option1=”Information which does not affect the sovereignty and integrity of India” option2=”Information which has been expressly forbidden to be published by the court of law or tribunal” option3=”Information which would cause a breach of privilege of the Parliament or the State Legislature” option4=”Information which received in confidence from a foreign government” correct=”option1″]

The question asks which statement is *not correct pertaining to the exemption* from disclosure. Statements B, C, and D list specific categories of information that are explicitly exempt from disclosure under Section 8 of the RTI Act, 2005. Statement A describes “Information which does not affect the sovereignty and integrity of India”. Information that *does not* affect sovereignty and integrity is generally *not* exempt (unless another exemption applies). Therefore, describing this type of information as an exemption, or implying it is one, is incorrect. Statement A is the one that does not correctly describe an exemption.

Section 8 of the RTI Act lists various categories of information that are exempt from mandatory public disclosure. These exemptions are based on potential harm that disclosure might cause (e.g., to national security, foreign relations, legal proceedings, privileges of legislature, commercial confidence, etc.). Information that does *not* fall under these categories must generally be disclosed.

Section 8(1)(a) exempts information that would *prejudicially affect* the sovereignty and integrity of India, etc. Therefore, information that does *not* prejudicially affect these aspects is not exempt under this clause. The phrasing of option A describes information that is *not* covered by the exemption under Section 8(1)(a).

Consider the following statements with reference to the disposal of request under the RTI Act, 2005 :

• 1. As expeditiously as possible, in any case, within 30 days of the receipt of the request, provide the information on payment of such fee as may be prescribed.
• 2. As expeditiously as possible, in any case, within 30 days of the receipt of the request, reject the request for any of the reasons specified in Sections 8 and 9.

Which of the above statements is/are correct?

[amp_mcq option1=”1 only” option2=”2 only” option3=”Both 1 and 2″ option4=”Neither 1 nor 2″ correct=”option3″]

Both statements are correct descriptions of how a Public Information Officer (PIO) should dispose of an information request under Section 7(1) of the RTI Act, 2005. The PIO must provide the information (on payment of fee) or reject the request (for valid reasons under Sections 8 and 9) as expeditiously as possible, and in any case, within thirty days of receiving the request.

Section 7(1) of the RTI Act mandates that the PIO must respond to a request for information within a specific timeframe, which is normally 30 days. The response can either be providing the information or rejecting the request based on the exempted categories listed in the Act.

In certain cases, such as concerning the life or liberty of a person, the information must be provided within forty-eight hours. If the request involves a third party, the time limit is extended. Failure to respond within the specified time is deemed a refusal.

For the period of five years, for updating records, improving infrastructure, creating manuals and establishing the Public Records Offices, the Second Administrative Reform Commission, in its first report (June 2006), recommended that as one-time measure, the Government of India should

[amp_mcq option1=”earmark 1% of the funds of all flagship programmes” option2=”earmark 1.5% of the funds of all flagship programmes” option3=”earmark 2% of the funds of all flagship programmes” option4=”earmark 2.5% of the funds of all flagship programmes” correct=”option1″]

The First Report of the Second Administrative Reforms Commission (June 2006) on the Right to Information recommended that, as a one-time measure for a period of five years, 1% of the funds in all Centrally Sponsored Schemes and State Sector Schemes should be earmarked for improving record management, updating records, improving infrastructure, creating manuals, and establishing Public Records Offices. The question uses “flagship programmes”, which aligns with the types of schemes referred to in the report.

The Second ARC’s recommendation was a specific percentage (1%) of funds from major government schemes/programmes to be dedicated to improving record management systems to facilitate proactive disclosure and responses under the RTI Act.

This recommendation highlighted the importance of good record-keeping for effective implementation of the RTI Act. Poor record management can be a significant barrier to providing information to citizens. The recommended earmarking was meant to address this foundational issue.

Which among the following institutions is not considered as ‘Public Authority’ under the RTI Act, 2005?

[amp_mcq option1=”Established or constituted by or under the Constitution of India” option2=”Established by private entity not financed and controlled by the Government” option3=”Established or constituted by any law made by the Parliament” option4=”Established or constituted by any law made by a State Government” correct=”option2″]

Statement B describes an entity established by a private entity and not financed or controlled by the Government. Such an entity does not fall under the definition of ‘Public Authority’ as per Section 2(h) of the RTI Act, 2005. Statements A, C, and D describe entities established or constituted under the Constitution or by laws made by Parliament or State Legislatures, which are explicitly covered by the definition.

Section 2(h) of the RTI Act defines ‘public authority’ to include bodies established under the Constitution or by law, or bodies owned, controlled, or substantially financed by the appropriate Government, as well as substantially financed non-Government organisations. Private entities not meeting these criteria are not public authorities under the Act.

The definition of ‘public authority’ aims to cover governmental bodies and those non-governmental bodies that rely heavily on government funding or control, bringing them within the purview of transparency and accountability mandates of the RTI Act. Purely private bodies, operating independently of government finance and control, are outside the Act’s scope.