Lokpal and Important Commissions

Which one of the following is the normal time limit for disposal of the RTI request from the date of receipt ?

[amp_mcq option1=”15 days” option2=”20 days” option3=”25 days” option4=”30 days” correct=”option4″]

According to Section 7(1) of the RTI Act, 2005, the Public Information Officer must provide the requested information as expeditiously as possible, and in any case within thirty days of the receipt of the request. There is an exception for cases involving the life or liberty of a person, where the information must be provided within forty-eight hours.

The normal time limit for disposing of an RTI request is 30 days from the date of receipt by the public authority.

If the request is submitted to an Assistant Public Information Officer (APIO), the time limit is extended by five days, totaling 35 days. If the request involves consultation with a third party, the time limit can also be extended.

What is the fee prescribed under the RTI Rules, 2012 for the Below Poverty Line applicant ?

[amp_mcq option1=”₹ 10″ option2=”₹ 20″ option3=”₹ 30″ option4=”Exempted from payment of fee” correct=”option4″]

Section 7(5) of the RTI Act, 2005 explicitly states that “the person below poverty line, as may be determined by the appropriate Government, shall not be required to pay any such fee” for seeking information. This exemption applies to both the initial application fee and any further fee for providing the information.

Persons below the poverty line (BPL) are exempted from paying any fee under the RTI Act, 2005.

Applicants seeking this exemption must provide proof of their BPL status as prescribed by the appropriate government rules.

Who can file an appeal before the Central Information Commission ?

[amp_mcq option1=”Only the applicant whose RTI application was rejected” option2=”Any third party affected by the RTI application” option3=”Only the Chief Information Commissioner” option4=”Any citizen who is aggrieved by the decision of the Public Information Officer” correct=”option4″]

Section 19 of the RTI Act, 2005 allows “any person who does not receive a decision within the time specified in sub-section (1) or clause (a) of sub-section (3) of section 7, or is aggrieved by a decision of the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, may within thirty days from the expiry of such period or from the receipt of such a decision prefer an appeal to the first appellate authority”. It further states that “Any person who is aggrieved by the decision under sub-section (1) may prefer a second appeal to the Central Information Commission or, as the case may be, the State Information Commission”. Thus, any person aggrieved by the decision of the PIO (or the first appellate authority) can file an appeal before the Information Commission. While typically the applicant is the aggrieved person, third parties whose information is being sought can also be aggrieved and appeal in certain circumstances.

An appeal to the Central Information Commission can be filed by any person (primarily the applicant) who is aggrieved by the decision of the PIO or the First Appellate Authority.

The first appeal lies with a senior officer within the same public authority (First Appellate Authority), and the second appeal lies with the Central Information Commission or State Information Commission, as applicable.

Which one of the following is not a method of filing an RTI application ?

[amp_mcq option1=”Online through the RTI portal” option2=”By post” option3=”In person to the Chief Information Commissioner” option4=”By hand to the Public Information Officer” correct=”option3″]

Filing an RTI application is done by submitting it to the Public Information Officer (PIO) or Assistant Public Information Officer (APIO) of the concerned public authority. This can be done in person, by post, or through the online RTI portal (for applicable authorities). Filing the initial application directly with the Chief Information Commissioner (CIC) is not the prescribed method. The CIC is the head of the Central Information Commission, which is primarily an appellate body that hears appeals against decisions of the First Appellate Authority or complaints regarding non-compliance.

Initial RTI applications must be filed with the PIO or APIO of the relevant public authority, not directly with the Chief Information Commissioner.

Methods like online filing (through designated portals), sending by post, or submitting by hand to the PIO/APIO are valid ways to submit an RTI request.

The RTI Act, 2005 mandates that all public authorities must proactively disclose certain categories of information. What is this proactive disclosure mechanism called ?

[amp_mcq option1=”RTI Monitoring System” option2=”Central Information Portal” option3=”National Public Information Directory” option4=”RTI Annual Report” correct=”option3″]

Section 4 of the RTI Act, 2005 mandates that all public authorities must proactively disclose certain information. While the Act uses the term “publication of information” under Section 4, this mechanism is commonly referred to as “proactive disclosure” or “suo motu disclosure”. Among the given options, “National Public Information Directory” (C) best represents a potential system or initiative that would organise and make accessible the vast amount of information required to be proactively disclosed by various public authorities across the nation. While not explicitly named this in the Act, it aligns with the objective of creating a readily available source of public information, distinguishing it from mechanisms like annual reports (D), monitoring systems (A), or even a general central portal (B) that might not be specifically focused on consolidating the *proactive disclosure* information from all authorities. It implies a structured way to access the output of the proactive disclosure requirement.

Proactive disclosure (Section 4) requires public authorities to publish information regularly. Option C suggests a potential system for organising and accessing this information.

Public authorities typically implement proactive disclosure by publishing information on their websites, in official gazettes, through publications, etc. The idea behind proactive disclosure is to reduce the need for individual RTI requests by making information easily accessible to the public.

The Commission shall impose how much amount as the penalty on each day, if the PIO, without any reasonable cause, refused to receive an application for information till it reaches Rupees twenty-five thousand under the RTI Act, 2005 ?

[amp_mcq option1=”₹ 200″ option2=”₹ 225″ option3=”₹ 250″ option4=”₹ 300″ correct=”option3″]

According to Section 20(1) of the RTI Act, 2005, if a Public Information Officer (PIO), without any reasonable cause, refuses to receive an application, fails to provide information within the specified time, malafidely denies the request, gives incorrect, incomplete or misleading information, or obstructs the information in any manner, the Information Commission shall impose a penalty of two hundred and fifty rupees each day till application is received or information is furnished, subject to a maximum of twenty-five thousand rupees.

The daily penalty for delay or refusal by a PIO is ₹250 per day, up to a maximum of ₹25,000.

The Information Commission must give the PIO a reasonable opportunity of being heard before imposing any penalty. The burden of proving that he acted reasonably and diligently lies on the PIO.

Consider the following statements pertaining to powers and functions of the Information Commission to receive and inquire into a complaint from any person :

• 1. Who has not been refused access to any information requested under the RTI Act, 2005
• 2. Who has not been given a response to a request for information or access to information within the time limits specified under the RTI Act, 2005
• 3. Who believes that he or she has been given incomplete, misleading or false information under the RTI Act, 2005

Which of the above statements are correct ?

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

Statements 2 and 3 are correct grounds for filing a complaint with the Information Commission. Section 18 of the RTI Act, 2005 lists the grounds on which the Central Information Commission or State Information Commission can receive and inquire into a complaint. These include: (a) Refusal of access to information (contrary to statement 1), (b) Not responding within the time limit (statement 2), (c) Unreasonable fees charged, (d) Information given is incomplete, misleading or false (statement 3), (e) Wrong information regarding exemptions, (f) Refusal to accept application, etc. Statement 1 is incorrect as refusal of access *is* a valid ground for complaint, not a reason *not* to complain.

Grounds for complaint to the Information Commission include non-receipt of information within the time limit and receiving incomplete, misleading, or false information.

The Information Commission has the power to investigate such complaints and can impose penalties or direct the public authority to take necessary steps to comply with the Act.

Consider the following statements:

• The Chief Information Commissioner and Information Commissioners shall be appointed by the President on the recommendation of a committee consisting of
• 1. the Prime Minister, who shall be the Chairperson of the committee.
• 2. the Leader of Opposition in the Lok Sabha.
• 3. a Union Cabinet Minister to be nominated by the Prime Minister.

Which of the above statements are correct ?

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

All three statements are correct. According to Section 12(3) of the RTI Act, 2005, the Chief Information Commissioner and Information Commissioners are appointed by the President on the recommendation of a committee consisting of (1) the Prime Minister, who is the Chairperson; (2) the Leader of Opposition in the House of the People (Lok Sabha); and (3) a Union Cabinet Minister to be nominated by the Prime Minister.

The selection committee for CIC and ICs consists of the Prime Minister, Leader of Opposition in Lok Sabha, and a Union Cabinet Minister nominated by the PM.

This composition ensures a degree of consensus in the appointment process, involving both the ruling party (through the PM and a cabinet minister) and the opposition (through the Leader of Opposition).

Which one of the following statements is not correct about the RTI Act, 2005 ?

[amp_mcq option1=”The Right of Information Bill has been passed by both the Houses of Parliament and received assent of the President on 15th June, 2005.” option2=”Any citizen may request information about the activities of the public authority.” option3=”There is no nominal application fee that is needed to pay to get information under RTI application.” option4=”The Right to Information (Amendment) Act 2019 (24 of 2019) came into effect on 24-10-2019.” correct=”option3″]

Statement C is incorrect. The Right to Information Act, 2005 and the rules framed thereunder prescribe a nominal application fee for seeking information, except for persons belonging to the Below Poverty Line (BPL) category. For Central Government public authorities, the application fee is typically ₹10. State governments have their own rules regarding the fee, which may vary, but a fee is generally required unless the applicant is BPL.

A nominal application fee is required under the RTI Act, 2005, unless the applicant is exempted (e.g., BPL). Thus, the statement claiming “no nominal application fee” is false.

Statement A is correct: The RTI Bill received the President’s assent on June 15, 2005. Statement B is correct: Any citizen can request information. Statement D is correct: The RTI Amendment Act, 2019 came into effect on October 24, 2019, modifying provisions related to the tenure, salary, and terms of service of Information Commissioners.

The RTI Act, 2005 is based on which fundamental right of the Constitution of India ?

[amp_mcq option1=”Right to Equality (Article 14)” option2=”Right to Freedom of Speech and Expression (Article 19)” option3=”Right to Life and Personal Liberty (Article 21)” option4=”Right against Exploitation (Article 23)” correct=”option2″]

The Right to Information Act, 2005 is fundamentally based on the idea that citizens have the right to access information held by public authorities. This right to know is an essential facet of the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India. The Supreme Court of India has, in numerous judgments, affirmed that the right to information is implicit in the right to freedom of speech and expression. Access to information allows citizens to participate effectively in a democracy and to hold their government accountable.

The right to information is considered a derivative of the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a).

While information can also be crucial for the exercise of other rights like the Right to Life (Article 21), particularly in matters of health, environment, etc., the legal and constitutional basis for the RTI Act is primarily rooted in the right to freedom of speech and expression, as recognised by the judiciary.