Which of the following is related to Right to Information Act, 2005?

Lily Thomas v/s Union of India
Nandini Sundar v/s State of Chhattisgarh
Namit Sharma v/s Union of India
None of the above

The correct answer is (c).

The Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) is an Indian law that gives citizens the right to access information held by the government. The RTI Act was passed by the Parliament of India on 15 June 2005 and came into force on 12 October 2005. The RTI Act is one of the most important laws in India as it gives citizens the power to hold the government accountable.

The RTI Act applies to all government bodies, including the central government, state governments, local governments, and public sector undertakings. The RTI Act also applies to non-governmental organizations (NGOs) that receive government funding.

Under the RTI Act, citizens can request information from any government body. The information can be about any matter that is in the possession of the government, including records, documents, and reports. The government is required to provide the information to the citizen within 30 days of the request.

The RTI Act has been a very successful law. It has helped to improve transparency and accountability in the government. It has also helped to empower citizens and make them more aware of their rights.

The RTI Act has been challenged in court a number of times. However, the Supreme Court of India has upheld the validity of the RTI Act. The Supreme Court has also issued a number of orders to strengthen the RTI Act.

The RTI Act is a landmark law that has had a positive impact on India. It has helped to make the government more transparent and accountable. It has also helped to empower citizens and make them more aware of their rights.

The other options are not related to the Right to Information Act, 2005.

(a) Lily Thomas v/s Union of India is a case that was decided by the Supreme Court of India in 2006. The case was about the right to privacy. The Supreme Court held that the right to privacy is a fundamental right.

(b) Nandini Sundar v/s State of Chhattisgarh is a case that was decided by the Supreme Court of India in 2011. The case was about the rights of tribal people. The Supreme Court held that the government has a duty to protect the rights of tribal people.

(c) Namit Sharma v/s Union of India is a case that was decided by the Supreme Court of India in 2012. The case was about the right to education. The Supreme Court held that the government has a duty to provide free and compulsory education to all children.

Exit mobile version