The Parliamentary Act

11. Which one of following statements is not correct under the Right to

Which one of following statements is not correct under the Right to Information Act, 2005?

Join Our Telegram Channel
No specific qualifications have been prescribed for appointment as Information Commissioner.
An Information Commissioner holds office at the pleasure of the President.
No person can be appointed as Information Commissioner unless he is a person of eminence in public life.
An Information Commissioner must have wide knowledge and experience in law, science and technology, social service, management, journalism, mass media or administration and governance.
This question was previously asked in
UPSC SO-Steno – 2017
Download PDFAttempt Online
Statement B is incorrect. An Information Commissioner holds office for a term prescribed by the Central Government (as per the RTI Amendment Act, 2019) or until the age of 65, whichever is earlier (as per the original Act, and the age limit is generally retained even with changes in tenure length prescribed by the government). They can only be removed from office under specific grounds like proved misbehaviour or incapacity, following a procedure involving an inquiry, as laid down in Section 14 of the RTI Act. They do not hold office at the pleasure of the President, which would imply the President can remove them at any time without cause.
The tenure and removal process of Information Commissioners are defined by the RTI Act, 2005 (and its amendments), ensuring a degree of security of tenure, unlike holding office “at the pleasure” of the executive head.
Statements A, C, and D reflect provisions of Section 12(5) of the RTI Act, 2005, which states that the Chief Information Commissioner and Information Commissioners shall be persons of eminence in public life with wide knowledge and experience in specified fields. While it doesn’t prescribe formal educational degrees, it specifies necessary attributes and experience, functioning as qualifications. Therefore, statement A (“No specific qualifications have been prescribed”) is also technically incorrect as criteria are indeed prescribed, but statement B is the most definitively incorrect legal statement about the nature of their office tenure.

Subscribe on YouTube

12. Which one of the following Acts is not directly related to the protect

Which one of the following Acts is not directly related to the protection of Intellectual Property Rights?

Join Our Telegram Channel
The Transfer of Property Act, 1882
The Semiconductor Integrated Circuits Layout Designs Act, 2000
The Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958
The Patents Act, 1970
This question was previously asked in
UPSC SO-Steno – 2017
Download PDFAttempt Online
The Transfer of Property Act, 1882 deals with the transfer of immovable property and certain forms of movable property in India. It is not directly related to the protection of Intellectual Property Rights (IPRs).
– Intellectual Property Rights protect creations of the mind, such as inventions (patents), literary and artistic works (copyright), designs, symbols, names, and images used in commerce (trademarks), and layout designs of integrated circuits.
– The Semiconductor Integrated Circuits Layout Designs Act, 2000 specifically protects the layout designs of integrated circuits, which is a type of IPR.
– The Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 (now largely replaced by the Trade Marks Act, 1999) dealt with the protection of trademarks, which are IPRs.
– The Patents Act, 1970 deals with the grant and protection of patents for inventions, which are IPRs.
– Other major Acts related to IPRs in India include the Copyright Act, 1957, the Designs Act, 2000, and the Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, 1999.

Subscribe on YouTube

13. According to the provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005, whi

According to the provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005, which one of the following statements is *not* correct ?

Subscribe on YouTube
An application for information must be made only in English or in Hindi.
An application seeking information must accompany prescribed fee except for persons below poverty line.
No personal details need to be given while seeking information except those necessary for contacting the applicant.
Information can be sought even orally.
This question was previously asked in
UPSC SO-Steno – 2017
Download PDFAttempt Online
The correct answer is A. The statement that an application must *only* be made in English or Hindi is incorrect.
Section 6(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005, states that a person seeking information may make a request in writing or through electronic means in English or Hindi or in the official language of the area in which the application is being made. Therefore, limiting the languages to *only* English or Hindi is incorrect.
Statement B is correct as per Section 6(1) and Rule 3 of the RTI Rules, fees are prescribed, but persons below the poverty line are exempted.
Statement C is correct as per Section 6(2), the applicant is not required to give any reason for requesting the information or any personal details except those necessary for contacting him.
Statement D is correct in spirit as the proviso to Section 6(1) states that where a request is made orally, the public information officer shall render all reasonable assistance to the person making the request orally to reduce it in writing. While the formal application needs to be written, the process can start with an oral request facilitated by the PIO. Compared to the definitive inaccuracy of statement A, D is considered correct in the context of UPSC questions.
The RTI Act promotes transparency and accountability. The provision allowing applications in the official language of the area ensures accessibility for people across different states using regional languages.

Join Our Telegram Channel

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

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

Join Our Telegram Channel
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 PDFAttempt 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.).

Subscribe on YouTube

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

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

Join Our Telegram Channel
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 PDFAttempt 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.

Subscribe on YouTube

16. “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

Join Our Telegram Channel
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 PDFAttempt 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.

Subscribe on YouTube

17. 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

Join Our Telegram Channel
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 PDFAttempt 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.

Subscribe on YouTube

18. 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 ?

Subscribe on YouTube
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 PDFAttempt 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.

Join Our Telegram Channel

19. 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 ?

Join Our Telegram Channel
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 PDFAttempt 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.

Subscribe on YouTube

20. Consider the following statements : According to the RTI Act, 2005, as

Consider the following statements :
According to the RTI Act, 2005, as far as exempted organizations are concerned, the exemption applies to

Subscribe on YouTube
  • 1. certain organizations of the Central Government as listed in the Second Schedule and to the information submitted by these organizations to Central Government.
  • 2. certain organizations of the State Governments as may be notified by them in the Official Gazette, but not to the information furnished by these organisations to the respective State Governments.

Which of the above statements is/are correct ?

1 only
2 only
Both 1 and 2
Neither 1 nor 2
This question was previously asked in
UPSC Combined Section Officer – 2024
Download PDFAttempt Online
Statement 1 is incorrect. Section 24 of the RTI Act, 2005 exempts certain intelligence and security organizations listed in the Second Schedule (established by the Central Government) and those notified by State Governments from the purview of the Act. However, this exemption is for the organization itself and the information it holds, with a crucial proviso that information pertaining to allegations of corruption and human rights violations is not exempt. Statement 1 incorrectly suggests that the exemption also applies to information *submitted by* these organizations to the Central Government. Once information is submitted to a non-exempt public authority, its accessibility is governed by the general provisions of the Act applicable to that public authority, not the S. 24 exemption of the originating body.
Statement 2 is correct. Section 24(4) allows State Governments to notify intelligence and security organizations as exempt. The proviso regarding corruption and human rights violations also applies to these state organizations. The statement correctly notes that the exemption applies to certain State Government organizations. The phrase “but not to the information furnished by these organisations to the respective State Governments” implies that information submitted by these exempted state bodies to the state government (a non-exempt entity) is not covered by the S. 24 exemption, which is consistent with the interpretation that the exemption applies to the organization and its records, not to information transmitted elsewhere.
– Section 24 of the RTI Act exempts certain intelligence and security organizations.
– The exemption is primarily for the organization and the information it holds.
– Information pertaining to corruption and human rights violations is not exempt under Section 24.
– Information furnished by an exempted organization to a non-exempt public authority is generally subject to the RTI Act provisions applicable to the receiving authority, not the S. 24 exemption of the originating body.
The Second Schedule lists various Central intelligence and security agencies like IB, RAW, Directorate of Enforcement, etc. State Governments can similarly notify their intelligence and security agencies. The rationale is to protect sensitive information critical for national or state security and intelligence gathering. However, the accountability for corruption and human rights abuses by these agencies is maintained through the proviso allowing access to such information.

Join Our Telegram Channel
Page 1Page 2Page 3Page 4Page 5